IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1756 of 2010 1. PUSPA KUMARI D/O SRI HARDEO SINGH, W/O LATE ANJANI KUMAR R/O VILL SAHARU ,P.S.DHANAR, DISTT-PATNA ,ARE WORKING AS FULL TIME TEACHER IN KASTURB GANDHI BALIKA VIDALAYA, DHANARUA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA 2. SWARNLATA SINHA D/O SRI MITHILESH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL TARPAR, P.S.HILSA, DISTT-NALANDA, ARE WORKING AS FULL TIME TEACHER IN KASTURB GANDHI BALIKA VIDALAYA, DHANARUA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR , BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA-23 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA CUM CHAIRMAN SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN DISTT-PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINENDENT OF EDUCATION null PATNA CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, PATNA , BAIDYA NATH PALACE, JAGDEO PATH,PATNA-14 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DHANARUA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY OF VIDYALAYA SIKSHA SAMITTEE MIDDLE SCHOOL DHANARUA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA 7. SMT. ANITA KUMARI W/O SRI SHATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL NIVMARA,P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA 8. KABITA KUMARI D/O SRI BRAJ NANDAN SINGH R/O VILL KEWARTA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA 9. INDU KUMARI D/O SRI BIRENDRA KUMAR PRABHAKAR R/O VILL SONMAI, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT-PATNA ----------- 7 30.08.2010 Pursuant to an advertisement issued in September 2007, vacancies were advertised in respect of Teachers (full time) on contract basis whose qualification was Intermediate. The appointment was to be initially of one year but, on satisfactory performance, was extendable further. Apart from others, petitioners responded. There were written test as provided in the advertisement. They passed and were duly appointed. They started teaching. Then there were complaints. Matter was enquired into. Out of about 63 persons who had applied, the top 10 meritlisted 2 persons’ answersheets of written examination was sent for reevaluation. Upon reevaluation, it is now alleged that the petitioners secured much less mark than they were awarded. They are, thus, to be removed which is the action challenged. As noticed by this Court earlier, there were several moves to reevaluate. At one time, impression was given that there were serious totalling errors. This Court directed for production of the answersheets of the 5 persons involved in the present case and placing them on record. Answersheets of all the candidates, which were reevaluated, have been brought on record. First question that arose why was a selective reevaluation of only 10 candidates out of about 60? State’s response would be that it was 5 amongst the first 10 who are to be selected. Court points out that on reevaluation could be that a person, who was much lower down, could have secured better marks and became eligible for selection. This could not be defended by the State. Thus found, on this count alone, the selective reevaluation cannot be sustained. We then come to the substantive challenge as laid out by Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners. He submits that what is known as reevaluation is merely retotalling. An examiner may give one mark, the other may differ because the questions are not all objective type questions. A subjective reevaluation is impermissible. Scores cannot change because of subjective reevaluation. Having considered the matter, in my view, the first thing to be considered is whether it was a mere subjective reevaluation or totalling error as well. By the last order passed in this case, Court had sought the 3 assistance of learned counsel to point out whether corrections/changes are as a consequence of retotalling or subjective reevaluation. Learned counsel for the State and other counsel today agree that it is not mathematical correction but only a subjective reevaluation by a new examiner which has changed the marks. In my view, this impermissible in any examination. The petitioners had been duly selected and are working. Their contract period expired which has also been extended. Merely because another examiner, on subjective consideration, comes to a different finding would not be proper to terminate petitioners’ employment because petitioners are not at fault. In examination where theory papers are checked, subjective reevaluation is never permitted unless it is a question of moderation which is not the case in the present case. Thus found, both on account of selective reevaluation as also on account of subjective reevaluation, the whole process of reevaluation cannot be sustained. Respondents must proceed in accordance with the results first obtained pursuant to which petitioners had been appointed. Subsequent actions are held to be without authority of law and are, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the impugned order terminating petitioners’ employment upon reevaluation is also set aside. Petitioners would be deemed to be continuing in service as their removal was not because of any fault of theirs. The writ petition stands disposed of. On behalf of respondent No 7, Mr Devendra Kumar Sinha learned Senior Counsel submits that his client has been ousted by virtue of 4 mass irregularity and illegality. In my view, respondent No 7 and her like have an independent cause of action for which they have liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)