Patna High CourtCWJC/9226/2008dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-10Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9226 of 2008 =========================================================== Sanjeev Kumar, son of Shri Awadhesh Prasad Singh, resident of VillageLalyanbigha, P.S. Harnauth, District Nalanda, presently residing at Mohalla Saketpuri (Bazar Samiti), Patna, P .S. Bahadurpur in the district and Town- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

6. Deputy Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

7. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna

8. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 9.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No-1 Mr Kamlesh Kishore, AC to GP 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-08-2015 The issue is required to rest now. Initially, a picture was painted by the petitioner that for extraneous reasons and consideration, one of the answer-sheet of the petitioner, which was paper V, was not evaluated deliberately to prejudice the chance of the petitioner from selection on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in terms of advertisement no.1 of 2006.

Now, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of BPSC.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9226 of 2008 dt.10-08-2015 2/2 They have indicated the reason for non- evaluation of the answersheet of the petitioner. The reason is attributable to the petitioner. Besides, it is clear that such a yardstick was not only adopted for the petitioner but many other candidates, who failed to provide the serial number of the booklet, have been also punished by non-evaluation of their answer-sheets.

In view of the same, there is no element of arbitrariness in non- evaluation of the answer- sheet of the petitioner which led to his non- selection.

Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U