VIVEK PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mrigank Mauli in CWJC No. 16181 of 2021. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioners in CWJC No. 11556 of 2021. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned Advocate. The State is represented by Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-2 in CWJC No. 11556 of 2021 and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned SC-11 in CWJC No. 16181 of 2021.

(2.) In CWJC No. 11556 of 2021, petitioners seek quashing of result of the preliminary test dtd. 27/4/2021 published in the process of appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO), pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2020. The result has been declared by the BPSC, Patna. The writ petition has been filed raising a grievance that only 3995 candidates have been declared successful in the preliminary test.

(3.) It is submitted that result should have been published in the ratio of 1:10 of total advertised seats, which has not been done. Petitioners, therefore, have prayed for directing the respondents to issue a fresh result of preliminary test as per ratio 1:10 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. The petitioners have also questioned the marks awarded for all 6 questions of Paper-II (Law), bearing Question Nos. 63, 90, 93, 94, 97 and 100. It is submitted that the modal answers of these questions are incorrect. The petitioners, in fact, had given the correct answers but relying on wrong model answers, they have been deprived of marking for these questions and therefore the result of the preliminary test is vitiated. However, during argument, having considered the stand of the respondent-Commission in the counter-affidavit that Question No.100 has been deleted, the petitioners have confined their grievance only with respect to 5 of the remaining questions, i.e., Question Nos. 63, 90, 93, 94 and 97.