- (1.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 420/423/424/467/468/469/471/477 -A/120B/109/201/409 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No. 23 of 2010 (now R.C. 6(A)/2012 AHD -R), pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi
(2.) THE present case has been lodged after gross illegalities, irregularities bunglings and favouritism surfaced in the Combined Selection Process of IInd Civil Services Exam conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The advertisement was given for the posts required by the Principal Secretaries of Personnel, Administrative and Reforms Department; Finance Department and Co - operative Department. Altogether 86 candidates for Administrative Department; 71 candidates for Finance Department; 6 candidates for Co -operative Department and 9 candidates for Home Department in total 172 candidates. Between 21st January 2008 and 31st January 2008. Candidates were called for their interview and after that the Commission has recommended for the appointment of 172 candidates as per the detail given above to the Personnel, Administrative and Reforms Department. The gist of the allegation is that mal -practice, unfairmeans and favouritism have been done in the selection process by the accused persons, who are either member of the Commission or the Chairman or in any way connected with the selection process. It is alleged that the competent persons were not selected for setting the question paper rather the members of the Commission or the Chairman had selected the persons of their choice to set the question papers in violation of Rules contained in Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2002. The incompetent persons were entrusted to select the question papers. There was cutting and overwriting in the marks obtained by the candidates. Somewhere the marks of some of the candidates have been reduced and somewhere marks have been increased. The members of the Commission including the petitioner have not given declaration regarding their relation appearing in the examination and those who have given declaration, have not provided the detail. The appointment of examiner and experts in the Interview Board was not in accordance with the Rules rather the Chairman and the members had selected the persons of their choice for the said purpose. The petitioner was also selected as Chairman of the Interview Board though her relations were appearing for their appointment. It is further alleged that the Chairman and the members of the Interview Board have adopted corrupt practice and misused their post and position to give favour to their relation and candidates of their choice. To accommodate the relations and the candidates of their choice, the members and the Chairman of the Commission have selected the number of candidates for the interview. In course of investigation manipulation, cutting and overwriting done in the marks of the candidates have been indicated with roll number of the candidate. For the post of 172 successful candidates instead of 516, the Commission has called for 561 candidates for their interview and in this way they have included 45 more candidates in the list of the candidates called for their interview. Vinod Ram brother of the petitioner and Kumari Geetanjali daughter of the sister of petitioner had appeared in the IInd Civil Services Combined Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the petitioner was the Chairman in the Interview Board but she never disclosed about her relatives appearing for their appointment.
(3.) IT is submitted that the question settlers were selected at the instance of Chairman and two senior members of the Commission and the petitioner did not participate in the process because she was the junior most member in the Commission. Likewise the expert and examiners were also selected at the instance of Chairman and senior members of the Commission. Before the Interview Board headed by the petitioner her relatives had not appeared. Since many of the candidates had obtained equal marks and that was the reason that 45 more candidates were included in the list of candidate called for their interview. The I.O. had not collected evidence that the petitioner was involved in manipulating or doing overwriting in the marks obtained by the candidates. She has been in custody since last 21 months and therefore she may be released on bail.;