IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11141 of 2006 MAHENDRA MEHRA SON OF LATE SUKDEO MEHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIDHAP KALA, P.S. LADANIA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNEMT OF BIHAR, PATNA OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1. 2. CHAIRMAN OF BIHAR KARAMCHARI CHAYAN AYOG, PATNA. 3. SECRETARY OF BIHAR KARAMCHARI CHAYAN AYOG, PATNA. 4. JOINT SECRETARY OF BIHAR KARAMCHARI CHAYAN AYOG, PATNA. 5. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONN OF BIHAR KARAMCHARI CHAYAN AYOG, PATNA. 6. INVIGILATOR, S.K. SINGH, BIHAR KARMACHARI CHAYAN AYOG, PATNA. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 15.03.2011 Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to respondents for production of his answer sheets of examination held for the post of Junior Engineer, in which he had appeared on 6.8.2006 and to re-evaluate marks obtained by him in general knowledge and civil engineering papers. Petitioner has alleged that the respondents with a design has committed irregularity against scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, appearing from the centre at D.A.V. Public School. It is alleged that all S.C/S.C. candidate has given seats in Room No. 41 and 42 at D.A.V. School. Answer seats of all candidates, allowed to appear in the written test, at Room No. 41 and 42 of D.A.V. Public School, were torned by the Invigilator in two parts, when they finished writing their paper. Due to this illegality their answer seats could 2 not be evaluated properly and they were not declared successful. Allegation has been made against the one Invigilator, namely S.K.Singh. It is stated in the writ petition that candidates of Room no. 42 made a protest against their illegality, petitioner was also one of them. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 5, this allegation has been contradicted. It has been stated that the examination had been conducted in a highly sterile and secure environment, with videography, deputation of Magistrate and force at each centre. Computerized answer sheets i.e. OMR answer sheets were provided to the examinees, with unique bar code. The unique bar code was printed in a manner that the bar code and answer sheet would get separated equally from the perforated line in two halves. The basic date part and answer parts were separated. The concerned centre superintendent and invigilator were directed to separate the computerized answer seat into two halves, after the candidates completed writing in answer seats. Answer seats were separated into two parts from the perforated line, in presence of examinees. On completion of examination, answer part and data part of the answer seat were packed and sealed separately. Answer seats were then transported for evaluation, under proper escorts of the Magistrate and force. The evaluation was totally computerized and free from human errors and carried out by scanning of the answers through computer scanners. Therefore, the matching of two parts of the final result was 3 prepared after evaluation was done with the help of unique bar codes, again through computerized process. The merit list was also prepared on that basis and only candidates having secured minimum qualifying marks were declared successful. Considering the statement made in the counter affidavit, explaining the reason for tearing off the answer sheets in two parts, I do not find that any illegality was committed by the respondents. Allegation made by petitioner has no merit. This writ application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( Mridula Mishra, J.)