Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In all these three writ petitions commonality is that petitioners herein are serving Aanganbari Sevikas, who were candidates in a limited Departmental selection exercise for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisors against 25% quota under two separate advertisements dated 5.8.2011 and 21.3.2012 under the Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development. Petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 1316/2013 were candidates in the first recruitment exercise held on 18.12.2011 under advertisement of 2011 (Annexure-10), which was meant to fill up the backlog vacancies to the post of lady , supervisors against vacancies shown therein. Petitioners in other two writ petitions are admittedly candidates, who had appeared in exam held on 25.4.2012 under advertisement of 2012 (Annexure-3 of W.P. (S) No. 4608/2012), which was meant to fill up the regular vacancies to the same post. Petitioners in first two writ petitions have approached this Court with the grievance that the respondents have decided to cancel the examinations held under two advertisements to the post of lady supervisors through channel of limited exam of departmental candidates, vide order dated 9.2.2013. Petitioner in the third writ petition, however, came with a grievance that answers to certain questions have not been properly evaluated though she had marked the correct answers and, therefore, the answer sheet should be rechecked. Her contention is based upon information furnished under RTI containing petitioner's answer sheet. However, no master answer sheet or key-answer has been provided to the petitioner. She has found infirmities in the answers to question Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 27, 30, 34, 40, 50, and 18 after obtaining her answer book under RTI. She represented before the Director, Social Welfare for correction in the answer sheet with some supporting documents enclosed thereof, vide Annexure-4. However, since the respondents did not meet her grievances, she has approached this Court for re-evaluation of the incorrect answers. In the first two writ petitions, during its pendency, petitioners came with grievance-that the respondent-Department had chosen to hold fresh exam on 2.6.2013 containing the vacancies of the two advertisements for recruitment to the post of lady supervisors from the limited exam of departmental candidates to the Arjganbari Sevika. It would not be out of place to mention that the rale provides that 25% of the total vacancies to the post of lady supervisors are to be filled up from the channel of limited departmental exam of serving Anganbari Sevika and rest 75% are to be filled up through direct recruitment.
(3.) The controversy herein is, therefore, in the context of exam held for the departmental candidates. By order dated 17.5.2013 this Court after taking note of the submissions of the petitioners as also the respondent-State passed an interim order restraining the respondents from holding such exam scheduled on 2.6.2013. The matter was thereafter adjourned for final adjudication. The order dated 17.5.2013 is quoted hereunder, as it also encapsulates the submissions of the parties on certain aspects relating to merit of the matter as well. "17.05.2013 Petitioners, in both the writ applications, have prayed for stay of the examination scheduled to be held on 2nd June, 2013 for the limited examination of the departmental candidates for the post of lady supervisor under the department of Women and Family Welfare, Govt, of Jharkhand. An interlocutory application with said prayer has also been filed in W.P. (S) No. 1316 of 2013 being l.A. No. 3176 of 2013. The writ petitions are directed against the order of cancellation of the examinations and the results pursuant to the examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012 for such appointment to the post of lady supervisor through the channel of limited examination of departmental candidates. It is argued by the learned senior counsel Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the entire documents on record which includes the report of the committee constituted by the department itself annexed as Annexure-17 to W.P. (S) No. 1316 of 2013 dated 16.5.2012 show that in the aforesaid 2 examinations held separately for backlog and regular vacancies of lady supervisor, however what has only been detected is wrong answer to one question each in two examinations. In fact the committee suggested to delete the marks of the said wrong answer by evaluating the results afresh and preparing a fresh merit list. It is submitted that no malpractices were discovered during the course of inquiry by the committee, still the decision has been taken by the respondent-State to cancel the examination which is highly arbitrary and illegal. The same is under challenge in the present writ applications. However, during the pendency of the writ applications, without the issue being adjudicated the respondents have chosen to hold fresh examination in the same nature on 2nd June, 2013 combining the vacancies of both the examinations which were earmarked for backlog and regular vacancies. This would definitely have an adverse effect on the case of the present petitioners, who are admittedly one of the successful candidates. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. II has referred to the decision of the Government contained in letter issued by the Secretary, Human Resource Department as Annexure-19 to W.P. (S) No 1316 of 2013 dated 9.2.2013 to submit that for certain irregularities and repeated evaluation of the merit list of the candidates a suspicion arose in relation to the conduct of the examination and that is why decision has been taken to cancel the examination itself. However, learned counsel for the State is not able to substantiate the aforesaid statement contained in the letter dated 9.2.2013 as to whether any malpractices or use of unfair means have been reported in the said examinations on the basis of any material brought on record. In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioners are justified in seeking a stay of fresh examination scheduled to be held on 2nd June,' 2013 for filling up the same vacancies. In that view of the matter, respondents are restrained from holding such examination scheduled to be held on 2nd June, 2013. Let the matter be placed under the heading for admission so that matter can be finally adjudicated as the pleadings have already been completed. Accordingly, post these cases on 17th June, 2013. l.A. No. 3176 of 2013 filed in W.P. (S) No. 1316 of 2013 stands disposed of.";