IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5336 of 2010 1. Shashank Bhushan S/O Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad R/O E-13, Opp. Road No.3, Kalimandir Road, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Near Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Distt. And Town- Patna Versus 1. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Near Bihar Veterinary College, Sheikhpura, Patna 2. Secretary/Director, Employment And Training Government Of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. Devanand Prasad Father Name Not Known Radio And T.V. Operator, C/O The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Commission: Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 with Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 24 --------------- 6. 24.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) and the State. The Commission published an advertisement on 4.8.2007 inter alia inviting applications for the post of Instructor, Radio and T.V. A corrigendum to the advertisement was also published on 8.8.2007.The writ petition originally raised allegations for denial of consideration and appointment as a reserved category candidate belonging to the backward class. After the counter affidavit was filed explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner was being treated as a general category candidate, that challenge has been given up. The challenge now is based on a wrong denial of appointment as a general category candidate questioning the selection of Respondent no. 3. The selection was based on a written test consisting of objective questions followed by interview. One mark was provided for 2 every correct answer and 0.5 marks was to be deducted for a wrong answer in the written examination. The written examination was of 100 marks. The marks for the written test and interview were in a ratio of 80 %: 20%. The petitioner has finally secured 88.04 marks. Respondent no. 3 has secured 88.32 marks. The difference is of .28 marks. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the terms of the advertisement have been varied subsequently after commencement of the selection process by granting 25% marks for the interview contrary to the 20% stipulated. This vitiates the entire selection. The pleadings in the supplementary counter affidavit that the corrigendum on 8.8.2007 clarified the change is not supported by the corrigendum itself at Annexure ‘A’. It was next submitted that out of the seven questions deleted for alleged wrong answers five of them bore correct answers. The petitioner had answered them correctly. If they are taken into consideration the petitioner shall stand a chance for success. Three questions contained wrong model answers. The option ticked by the petitioner were the correct answers and therefore he has again been denied proper consideration. Of the three questions which had wrong answers the attention of the Court has been drawn to Question No. 5, 86 and 88. It is contended that the correct answer for Question no. 5 is the option ‘C’ (Telephony) and not option ‘A’ (T.V.). Similarly Question No. 86 bears the right answer option ‘B’ (Small) and not option ‘C’ (Very Small). Likewise answer to Question no. 88 is the option ‘A’ (DIL) (Dual-In- Line Package) and not option ‘B’ (Flat). Counsel for the Commission submitted that the grant of 25% marks for interview was calculated on basis of the ratio distributed between the written test and the interview of 80:20. The Commission 3 has done no wrong. It was submitted that the seven questions deleted as having wrong answers has been done across the board and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The three questions alleged did not have wrong answers. The petitioner has lost the competition for selection by a hair’s breadth. His anxiety is appreciable. Escalating competition and a shrinking job market when the competition gets stiffer, even a miniscule difference in marks can spell the difference between success and disappointment. If there were seven questions which were deleted as having wrong answers across the board uniformly reducing the number of question required to be answered and assessed no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in any manner. In a public examination certain amount of flexibility and the power to adjust has to be given to the selecting body in order to streamline decisions without initiating a fresh selection process even if certain errors are found so that they are not allowed to become vital for the whole selection process. The final marks for the written examination and the ratio between the written test and interview was therefore necessarily required to be restructured also. The objective questions related to mechanic, radio and T.V., a professional technical course. An outright wrong answer with only one undisputed right answer would be one aspect and a conflicting determination with regard to the answer as may have been determined by the experts selected by the Commission and as may be opined by the petitioner is an entirely different matter. Question no. 5 required identification of wireless communicating system. The model answer was T.V. The petitioner identified it as Telephony. Based upon his research the petitioner relies upon Cellular Telephony and Cordless Telephony. There can be no doubt that cellular phone works on 4 wireless technology. The handset of a cordless phone works on wireless technology but not the base set which is energized by wired supply. The word telephony has tobe understood in common parlance. Likewise the model answer of the widely used IC Package determined by the Commission was Flat while the petitioner claims it to be DIL Package. The material placed by the petitioner from the expert extracts with regard to integrated circuit recognized that DIL Package as cheaper and that Flat package are commonly used for their individual advantage. Integrated circuits consist of very small units which save in parlance at different times can call the same item small interchangeably. The Court finds it difficult to arrive at a conclusion supplanting its views in place of the selecting agency. In the result the Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)