IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12179 of 2008 Shashi Bhushan Kumar, son of Sri Bindeshwari Paswan, Resident of Bhuli Nagar “A” Block Quarter No. 279, P.O.- Bhuli, P.S. – Bhuli,District – Dhanbad, State – Jharkhand ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna – 1 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna -1 4. The Officer on Special Duty, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna – 1 5. The Information Officer, Bihar Public Service Commission, Jawahar Lal Nehru marg, Bailey Road, Patna 1 ……….. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Dr. Ratan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Stayabir Bharti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjit Sinha, J.C. to S.C. X ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------------- Dated, the 23rd September, 2008. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate of written examination of 26th Bihar Judicial Service Examination, 2005. The principal prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to respondent no. 2 to re-evaluate the answer book of Elementary General Science (02). 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner having attempted all ten questions, could not have been - 2 - awarded 0 (zero) mark. We are afraid, there is no proposition of law that if a candidate attempts ten questions, he cannot be awarded 0 (zero) mark. It all depends on the answers. If answers to all ten questions are wrong, obviously, he could not have been awarded any marks. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. 2007(1) PLJR (SC) 151. 4. Paragraph 16 of the report, upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel, reads thus: “Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the correct marks sheet is issued to the candidates since candidates who appeared at the High School Certificate are of tender age. If by mistake the Boa4d indicates to the candidates’ incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse affect on the mind of the candidates of tender age. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the Board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate. The plea of the computer firm that considering the large number of candidates the mistake is not serious has no substance. The computer entries are made to ensure accuracy and to do away the defects which arise from manually recording the marks and to ensure accuracy. The Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually unmindful of the consequences which result from their negligence acts. Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondent no.1 by the Board out of which it shall recover Rs.15,000/- from computer firm. It appears that the Board has taken action against the Assistant Examiner and Scrutinizer for their negligence. While affirming action taken against them, we express our displeasure for their careless and negligent acts which have led to unnecessary litigation.” 5. What, has been held by the Supreme Court is that the Board of Secondary Education has to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate. Some errors were found in the marks sheet - 3 - issued on the basis of computer entries and the plea of computer firm was that considering the large number of candidates, there was some mistake. This is what is noticed in paragraph 15 of the report: “The appellant-Board is certainly not blemishless. Undisputedly, lesser marks were shown in the marks sheet supplied to the respondent no.1. In the first marks sheet the total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet was issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except putting the blame on the computer firm, Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer, nothing further has been offered by the appellant-Board as explanation. True it is the first mistake was of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly on the basis of the prayer for re- addition of marks. It was found that the marks actually secured were 71 while on the cover page of the answer sheet the marks noted as 65. For this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer. But that does not provide an escape route to the Board.” 6. We are afraid, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D. Suvankar cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, more so, because it is an admitted position that there is no provision for re-evaluation and re-assessment of the answer book. 7. Writ petition does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/