IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.169 of 2010 1. SHASHANK SHEKHAR S/O SRI KAPILDEO SHARMA R/O KATHPURA, P.O. BANDHUGANJ, P.S.- GHOSI, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. 2. AFSAR ZAVED S/O SYED MD. MOBIN R/O OLD KRIM GANJ, ROAD NO.1, GHARIKHANA GALI, GAYA. 3. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI RAJ KISHORE PRASAD R/O LIG- 117, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA. 4. PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, MIG 72 S/O SITA SARAN SHARMA CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA. 5. BIRENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHALIGRAM SINGH H.NO. 202, ROAD NO. 01, KISHORI MOHAN COMPLEX, CHADANTIMAR, P.S.- CHANDAUTI, DISTT.- GAYA. 6. RAJ KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O SRI BHARAJ LAL GOSWAMI R/O SHIVAJEE PATH, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. -----------Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. 3. THE REGISTRAR CIVIL COURT, GAYA. ----------- Respondents/Respondents --------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent No.1 :- G.P.1 For the Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv. --------- 2/ 29.01.2010 I.A. No. 819 of 2010 Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as also the respondents and after perusing the averments made in I.A. No. 819 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay of 27days in filing of this appeal, is 2 allowed. I.A. No. 819 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. L.P.A. No. 169 of 2010 Having condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, we with the consent of the parties are also inclined to take up the hearing of the appeal on merits for its disposal at the admission stage itself. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of six appellant-writ petitioners, the employees of the Civil Court, Gaya for quashing the proceedings of the District Appointment Committee/Promotion Committee, Civil Court, Gaya fixing 45% as pass (qualifying) marks in the departmental examination. The only submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the principle of estoppel could not have been made applicable against the appellants-writ petitioners, inasmuch as, they were never informed of the fixation of qualifying/pass marks before their examination is infact to be only noted for its being rejected. Counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on Annexure-2, the question paper of the departmental examination depicting full marks to be 100 and passing marks to be 45. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the fixation of pass marks at the time of their own appearing in examination. Once this aspect becomes clear, the reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the judgment 3 of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Mullick & Ors. Vs. State of Utranchal & Ors. reported in 2008(3)PLJR 271 (SC), based on settled principles of law emanating from Section 115 of the Evidence Act and backed by long time of settled cases on this point is absolutely correct. A further submission also made by the learned counsel for the appellants that infact there should be no varying qualifying/pass marks in the different districts of this State is again wholly misconceived. The petitioners are the employees of a cadre at district level and their promotion/appointment is governed at the district level. The petitioners being employees of Gaya Civil Court, the qualifying/pass marks fixed by the District Appointment Committee/Promotion Committee of Gaya alone would be applicable in their case. The reasonings given in such resolution for fixation of 45% marks also does not seems to be either arbitrary or illogical, inasmuch as, the Committee having found that earlier also 45 marks had been fixed as pass marks/qualifying marks in the examination for appointment of Class-III staff had proceeded to fix 45 marks in keeping with the previous exercise undertaken in the last departmental examination. The very purpose of departmental examination is to evaluate the efficiency, knowledge and skill of the working employees with a view to their adjudge their suitability for their being entrusted greater responsibility on the promotional posts. Infact such departmental 4 examination also aims to weed out inefficient/incompetent employees, inasmuch as, it is on the basis of the passing of such departmental examination that promotion/selection grade/ACP are given. Thus, if the appointment and selection committee of Gaya Civil Court had fixed 45 marks as pass marks in the departmental examination, no flaw can be found in the same specially when the statutory rules itself prescribes the District Appointment Committee/Promotion Committee to decide and fix such norms. Accordingly the decision taken by the District Appointment Committee/Promotion Committee, Civil Court, Gaya of fixing 45 marks can also not be said to be in contravention of the statutory rules, much less arbitrary. The Hon’ble single Judge in fact has dwelt on this aspect at length in the impugned and we fully agree with the reasoning and findings recorded therein. Thus no relief can be given to the appellant writ petitioners and accordingly the appeal is disposed of. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Rishi