IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.13022 of 2011
Manoj Kumar & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14130 of 2011
Chirantan Sheo
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14475 of 2011
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14068 of 2011
Lalit Vijay & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14470 of 2011
Rajeev Kumar & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14874 of 2011
Ajay Kumar & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14920 of 2011
Shivendra Kumar Sinha & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14415 of 2011
Sarvesh Kumar
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14070 of 2011
Krishna Mohan Thakur & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
CWJC No.14663 of 2011
Kumar Nitesh
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
-----------
2
04. 09.09.2011 After hearing learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and other counsels representing other petitioners in
similar kind of writ applications as well as the learned senior
counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore representing the BPSC, there seems to
be at least some kind of unanimity that the questions which have
been set by the so-called experts and the model answers given by
the question setters as well as the experts do require a re-look.
Instances have been pointed out in these writ applications where
wrong answers have been given to the right questions or the
question itself is entirely absurd to say the least. The Court need
not record all those examples pointed out during the course of
argument and indicated in the affidavits but the primary
contention on this count cannot be brushed aside. Mere deletion
of 8 questions out of 150 questions do not solve the problem as
many howlers still remain.
Since it is a question of future of many a hopeful
candidates and examination is being held for the 52nd to 55th
batch, the Court is of the opinion that a fair opportunity should
be given to one and all to compete in this examination based not
only on proper declaration of the preliminary examination result
but also the subsequent examination which will be conducted in
furtherance to the recruitment process.
The Court, therefore, directs the Commission that
they have liberty to now look for talent who can provide proper
3
inputs by reviewing the questions and the answers already
furnished either by the original experts who provided the data
bank for the questions or the answers on review provided by a
panel of experts. Their work, to say the least, has been far from
satisfactory and in that circumstance, the Commission will have
to engage people who can save further embarrassment to them
on this count.
After consultation with the Commission learned
senior counsel representing the Commission informs the Court
that to carry out this exercise on a re-look at the questions and
answers as to what is required to be retained and what is
required to be deleted they need about two months time. The
declaration of final position as to the cut-off etc. will be decided
then as per the direction of the Court.
The time prayed for in this regard is granted to the
Commission with a hope that there may not be another occasion
for this Court to comment on the way the examination has been
held and the result declared on this count. The final modality
with regard to the final declaration of result will be dependant
upon the exercise which will be carried out by the Commission
and the outcome informed to this Court by way of affidavit on
the next date.
Let this matter be listed in the same position on 14th
of November, 2011 for further hearing in admission.
It is made clear that in view of the above
4
contingency there may not be any occasion for the Commission
to go ahead and hold the final examination at this stage. Such an
assurance was also given earlier to the Court on this count.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the
advocate on record representing the BPSC for communication to
the Chairman/Commission for a follow up action.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)