Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two petitioners were candidates for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher(T.G.T.) in Upgraded Secondary School which examination was conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council (J.A.C.) on 29.8.2012. The examination contained two papers, first was objective type test and second was subjective type test. The terms of the advertisement, which is at Annexure -2 indicate at Clause(Cha) that answers of paper two would not be evaluated if a candidate failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks in paper one. The respondent - JAC, however has published information of individual candidates relating to non recommendation of their candidature in their website. In the case of petitioners, such document at Annexure -5 and 9 shows that they have obtained 221 marks and 224 marks respectively in paper 2. Petitioners become aggrieved as the candidates having lesser marks in paper two were recommended for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher by JAC. Result of one or the other is shown at Annexure -6, one of whom Suresh Kumar Harizan belonging to Schedule Caste Category has secured 210 marks. Few other candidates name were also there having lesser marks than the petitioners in the Schedule Caste category. The contention of the petitioners is that if the respondent -JAC has published the result of paper two of both the petitioners, it means that they have qualified in paper one, as per the terms of the advertisement. Therefore, there is no reason for JAC to not recommend their names to the State Government for appointment.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the JAC has submitted that paper one was objective type test, the answers of which were to be filled up in OMR sheet as per instructions. Both the petitioners did not inscribe the relevant circle relating to their Roll number in correct manner. Therefore their first paper was not evaluated by the computer. A photo copy of such OMR sheet has been produced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the JAC, which shows that petitioner No. 1 has incorrectly marked the last digit of his Roll number by inscribing it in different circle. His Roll Number is 21002331, while the petitioner No. 2 has not marked one of the digit 'zero' at all in the circle relating to inscription of Roll number 20802608.;