Archana Kumari v. The Chairman,B.P.S.C. And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16013 of 2007 =========================================================== Archana Kumari, daughter of Shankar Prasad and wife of Prabhat Kumar, resident of Mohalla Katharibag, Aryanagar, P.O.- Chhapra, P.S. +Town- Thana, DistrictChhapra,Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Secretary, B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna.
3. Deputy Secretary, B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. SANJAY KUMAR VERMA Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary Mr. Shashi Ranjan Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumr, A.C. to AAG-6 Mr. Sanjay Pandey =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-05-2015 Heard the Counsels for the petitioner, the State and the B.P.S.C.
The petitioner was a candidate under B.C. category for appointment on the post of Child Development Project Officer for which the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") initiated process of selection by issuing advertisement (Annexure-1). She claims to have appeared thereat. The examination was taken in the year 2006 and result was published thereafter. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the final result of the said examination published by the respondent Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16013 of 2007 dt.13-05-2015 2/2 Mr. Pandey, Counsel for the Commission has drawn attention of the Court to the various relevant paragraphs of the writ petition in order to contend that in substance, the petitioner wants reevaluation of the papers which is not permissible. He has relied in this regard on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. No rejoinder thereto has been filed.
In my view, the writ application merits to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U