Shahnawaz Anwer v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.639 of 2016 Arising out of C.W.J.C.No.12176 of 2014 =========================================================== Shahnawaz Anwer Son of Md. Mustafa Resident of Mohalla- Khatari, Police Station- Ara (Town), District- Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna through its Chairman.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna

4. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna

5. The Joint Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna

6. The Director, Bihar Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna

7. The Principal Secretary, Bihar Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

8. The Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance, 4th Floor, Suchna Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna

9. Sri Kumar Madan Son of Dashrath Yadav

10. Sri Pradip kumar Yadav Son of Indradev Yadav

11. Sir Sudhir Kumar Son of Brij Nandan Pandit

12. Sri Rajesh Kumar Dinkar Son of Bihari Ravi das

13. Sri Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Anirudh Singh

14. Sri Shohail Pervez son of Noor Mohammad

15. Sri Anil Kumar Son of Anandi Pd. Yadav

16. Sri Shashi Prakash Gupta Son of Radhey Prasad

17. Sri Surya Ketu Das Son of Jantari Das null

18. Sri Manmohan Kumar Sl. No. 9 to 18 are 'Swagatak' (Receptionist) C/o The Director, Department of Tourism Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anamul Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 Mr. Sriram Krishna AC to SC-11 For B.S.S.C. Mr. K.K. Upadhyay, Advocate For Vigilance Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) Date: 27-01-2017 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to

Patna High Court LPA No.639 of 2016 dt.27-01-2017 2/3 an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 18th of March, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 12176 of 2014 whereby, a writ application challenging his result was dismissed. The grievance is that there is wrong calculation of marks and if the calculation is corrected, the appellant will be a successful candidate.

2. The relevant facts are that, initially, for 100 O.M.R. questions 100 marks were assigned that is one question one mark. But later 8 questions were declared to be wrong, therefore, marking was done on the basis of 92 questions for 100 marks, i.e. instead of one mark for each question, 1.08 marks were given. The appellant has answered 59 correct questions, therefore, the marks of the correct answers comes to 63.72. The other condition was that for each incorrect answer, there would be deduction of half mark. The appellant had answered 28 questions incorrectly. Thus, total marks deducted were 14, meaning thereby, he gets 63.72-14=49.72. The appellant was given 15 marks in the viva voce. Thus, he got 49.72+15= 64.72 marks.

3. The stand of the Staff Selection Commission is that the calculation was made on the basis of 1.08 marks whereas the appellant is calculating the marks on the basis of 1.087 which is not the norm followed by the Commission. It is policy matter as to whether the marks should be calculated upto two decimal point or

Patna High Court LPA No.639 of 2016 dt.27-01-2017 3/3 three. Generally it two decimals points. Therefore, the action of the Commission to calculate the marks of all the candidates on the basis of two decimals cannot be interfered with in the case of the appellant alone.

4. Since the very calculation by the Appellant of marks is incorrect, therefore, the marks granted by the Staff Selection Commission cannot be said to be incorrect. Thus, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 03.02.2017 Transmission Date N/A