IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18309 of 2010 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *** 1. Purushottam Chandra S/o Sri Chandra Mauleshawar Mandal, Resident of Shastri Colony, P.S. Jamui, District Jamui 2. Shatish Kumar Bharti S/o Sri Ram Prasad Bhagat, C/o Late Dr. K.P.Verma, Near daily market, at + post – Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul……………………………………………………………………..…...Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chairman, the Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Examination Controller cum Additional Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Interview Board of Selection Committee, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The Selection Committee, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 8. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna……………………………………………………………..Respondents *** For Petitioners: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with M/s Manohar Pd. Singh & Sunil Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, A.A.G IX with Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, A.C. to A.A.G. IX. For BPSC: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH O R D E R 2 J.N. Singh, J. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application in respect of petitioner no.2. Let the writ application be treated as dismissed as withdrawn so far as petitioner no.2 Shatish Kumar Bharti is concerned. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to publish the result of Drug Inspector (Allopathic) afresh by cancelling the select list, as contained in Annexure-9, prepared on 02.10.2010 pursuant to the vacancies notified through Advertisement No.2/2008. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the last candidate of B.C. category selected by Annexure-9 had obtained 252 marks whereas petitioner had obtained 250 marks. He submits that out of total questions of 400, 17 questions were deleted on account of some controversy in respect of their correct answer. He submits that out of the said 17 questions, answers of the petitioner in respect of 9 were correct. Hence if they were evaluated, petitioner will get much more marks and will come within the consideration zone. He submits 3 that answer of 9 questions were correctly marked by the petitioner as is evident from the result- sheet and marks of the last examination which show that the petitioner had correctly answered 9 questions in the examination. On being asked by this Court, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that if 17 questions are added in respect of the petitioner, it will have to be added in the case of all the candidates and answer-sheets of all the candidates have to be evaluated afresh. Learned counsel assisting learned senior counsel has submitted that two answers of petitioner had been wrongly evaluated and if they are evaluated correctly, petitioner will get two more marks. Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, ‘the Commission’) has appeared in this case and has filed counter affidavit. The stand of the Commission is that, as per the procedure, the Question-Setter proposes the questions with possible answers of the same on the basis of which objective questions are set finally and examinations are held in all four papers and the candidates are required to mark correct answers. After the examination, the questions and probable answers, as suggested by the Question Setter are sent to an Expert Body and the Expert 4 Body examines the questions and decides about correct answers to be evaluated in favour of the candidates. In case there is any dispute in respect of probable answers suggested by the Question Setter and correct answers marked by the Expert Committee, the questions are deleted so that nobody is put to any advantage or disadvantage. This is the uniform practice and questions are deleted from consideration in respect of all the candidates uniformly. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that in this examination also this process was adopted and the Commission found a dispute between the Expert Body and the Question Setter in respect of three questions of paper no.I (Pharmacy), two questions in respect of paper II (Microbiology), two questions in respect of paper III (Pharmacogrosy) and ten questions of paper IV (Pharmaceutical Chemistry). Hence, these questions were deleted from consideration and the rest questions of the candidates were evaluated and marks were allotted. He submits that there has been no discrimination in the matter and answer-books of all the candidates have been uniformly evaluated on this pattern. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the act of the Commission has not prejudiced the 5 petitioner. It may be unfortunate for the petitioner that majority of the 17 questions, which had been deleted, he might have answered correctly. But this may also be a case with large number of other candidates. Therefore, it cannot be said that by not evaluating the said 17 questions answered by the petitioner, he was discriminated or prejudiced in any manner. Secondly, it is not denied that there was a dispute between the Question Setter and the Expert Body. Even if the answers suggested by the Question Setter were correct but since the dispute had been raised by the Expert Body, the Commission had no other option than to delete the questions. Commission could not sit over the decision of the Expert Body, disputing the answerers of the questions, even if the answers of the questions suggested by the Question Setter were later on found to be correct on the basis of the last year’s questions and answers. So far as wrong evaluation of two papers of petitioner, as raised by learned counsel assisting learned senior counsel, is concerned, the said stand has not been taken in the writ application. The said stand has been taken by the petitioner for the first time in the reply to the counter affidavit. Hence, this Court need not go into that question for granting any 6 relief to the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 7th December, 2011. N.A.F.R.(B.T.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.)