- (1.)Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.)Earlier on 17.5.2013, a detailed order was passed recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. As would appear from perusal of the said order, the respondent-department had chosen to hold examination for regular and backlog vacancies on 2.6.2013. The petitioners were aggrieved as in relation to the backlog and regular vacancies two different examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012 for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor through the channel of limited examination of departmental candidates have been annulled by the order impugned in the present writ applications being dated 9.2.2013. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court on the said occasion had restrained the respondents from holding a fresh examination scheduled to be held on 2.6.2013. The matter was adjourned, thereafter so that the issue may be finally adjudicated.
(3.)The respondent-State have filed supplementary counter affidavit on 29.8.2013. Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. S.C. II, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that apart from the findings rendered by the Committee constituted by the Department as contained in Annexure-17 to W.P.S. No. 1316 of 2013 dated 16.5.2012, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division who was also part of the said Committee had through letter dated 16.7.2012 requested the department to give approval of cancellation of examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has referred to the reasons culled out from the aforesaid letter at para 15 and 16 of the instant supplementary counter affidavit, which are being quoted herein below:-
"Para 15:-That it is further required to mention that in the question-cum-answer sheet of both the papers there was lack of proper instruction to the examinees like:-

(i) There was no instruction not to write the name of candidates in the answer sheet except first page of the answer sheet

(ii) There was no instruction that examinee should tick mark in the only correct box of the answer and if examinee put marks like cross marks/any marks in other box then examinee will get zero marks even examinee put tick marks in the box of correct answer

(iii) There was no Instruction that there was no option to change the answer

(iv) There was no instruction that examinee should not write any identification marks in any part of the answer sheet

(v) There was no place for signature of Invigilator in the answer sheet.

Aforesaid grounds No. (i) to (iv) is sufficient to cancel answer sheet of any examinee but due to the reason that no instructions given in this regard in the answer sheet, now it is not justified to cancel answer sheet of any examinee

Para 16:-That due to aforesaid lack of proper instruction for examinee several examinee wrote her name in the inner page of the answer sheet, several examinee change the answer by cutting previous answer, several examinee put cross mark in one box and tick mark in other box. None of the answer sheet contains signature of Invigilator on the date of examination. Therefore there is a doubt about the fairness of the examination but it is also not possible to give allegation any particular examinee due to lack of proper instruction in the answer sheet".