- (1.) PETITIONER 's prayer in this writ application is for quashing the final results of the Second Combined Civil Services Examinations published in the local newspaper on 13.4.2008 (Annexure -6) by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Ranchi (respondent no. 5) and also a direction upon the respondents to produce before this Court the answer sheets of the petitioner bearing roll no. 1181100 and that of two other candidates namely, Rupesh Kumar Sinha bearing roll no. 1116172 and Ritesh Kumar Singh bearing roll no 1102684 and to stay issuance of appointment letters, pursuant to the impugned results dated 13.4.2008, during the pendency of this writ application.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he is physically handicapped to the extent of 65%. In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent no. 5 inviting applications for the Second Combined Civil Services Examinations for recruitment in public service under the State of Jharkhand, petitioner has submitted his application and he was allotted roll no. 1181100 in the general category. He competed in the preliminary examination and thereafter, he appeared and qualified in the mains examination as a general category candidate, in the results published on 9.10.2007. The cut -off marks for the general category candidates as declared in the results of the mains examination, was 717. A revised result of the mains examination was published on 13.12.2007 wherein the petitioner was shown to have qualified as a physically handicapped general category candidate. The petitioner was called upon and faced interview on 30.1.2008, whereafter he faced medical examination on 27.2.2008. However, when the final result of the Second Combined Civil Services Examinations was published on 13.4.2008, the petitioner was not shown to have been selected. The petitioner found that the above named two candidates were shown in the final results, have been selected as physically handicapped general category candidates, although one of them namely, Ritesh Kumar Singh was not shown as one of the selected candidates in the earlier results of the mains examination published on 9.10.2007. The petitioner thereafter applied for information under the Right to Information Act on 16.4.2008 seeking details of the marks obtained by them and by the aforenamed two candidates. On perusal of the marks sheet which was supplied to him, the petitioner found that he was shown to have secured total number of 675 marks and in the interview, he was given 83.33 marks making the total of 758.33 marks, while the other candidate namely Ritesh Kumar was shown to have secured higher marks. Assailing the impugned results, Shri P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned result is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is against the reservation policy and the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the benefit of the reservation. Learned counsel explains that in the results of the mains examination published on 9.10.2007 wherein the cut -off marks was declared 717, the names of the other candidate namely, Ritesh Kumar Singh, though under the physically handicapped general category candidates, was not declared as a successful candidate, indicating thereby that the marks secured by him in the mains examination was certainly below the cut -off marks of 717 and that of the petitioner's marks was certainly above. Under such circumstances, the declaration in the marks sheet that the petitioner had secured only 675 marks in the mains examination, has to be considered as totally misleading, incorrect and arbitrary. Learned counsel argues further that admittedly, in the result of the mains examination published on 13.12.2007 the petitioner was acknowledged as physically handicapped candidate under the general category and therefore, the petitioner also comes within the zone of consideration under the reservation policy, but the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied the benefit. Referring to the reservation policy, learned counsel explains that as per the reservation policy, 50% of vacancies have to be allocated to the candidates under the reserved category and the remaining 50% to the general category. The percentage of reservation for the handicapped persons is 3%. As per the list of selected candidates, the total number of vacancies was 172, out of which, 86 vacancies corresponding to 50%, are to be filled up by the general category candidates and reservation for physically handicapped persons had to be provided to the extent of 3% which works out to 2.58% against which, only 2 candidates namely, Rupesh Kumar Sinha and Ritesh Kumar Singh, were appointed to the Administrative Services and Finance Services respectively, although as per the stipulated percentage, three vacancies in the handicapped general category ought to have been filled up. Referring to and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 10, learned counsel explains that since reservation of 3% of the vacancies meant for physically handicapped persons works out to 2.58%, the benefit of rounding it up on the higher side to 3, should have been given to the handicapped - candidates in the general category and the petitioner should also have been given the benefit of appointment. Learned counsel adds that as per the petitioner's information, against the total number of 172 vacancies, 171 only have been filled up leaving one vacancy, yet to be filled up.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent -Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Respondents 5 and 6). Shri A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondents, takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application on two grounds. Firstly, that by the nature of relief claimed and for the grounds stated, the present writ application is in the nature of anticipatory writ application" for stay of issuance of appointment letters pursuant to the impugned results dated 13.4.2008 and secondly, since by implication, appointment of the two other candidates particularly Ritesh Kumar Singh has also been challenged, this writ application cannot be held to be maintainable in absence of impleading the said candidates a necessary party. Learned counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that no order to the detriment of a person can be passed without hearing him. Learned counsel argues further that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the calculation on the basis of 3% for the physically handicapped candidates figures at 2.58%, it should be rounded up to 3 vacancies, is not tenable, since the selection process is already over and for eking out a third vacancy under the physically handicapped general category, one vacancy from the reserved category has to be curtailed. Such an action would certainly be arbitrary and would deprive the benefits which have already been extended to the selected candidates. Learned counsel submits further that tile contention of the petitioner that one vacancy out of the total 172 remains still not filled up, cannot be affirmed without verification. Referring to the purported anomaly regarding the marks secured by the petitioner in the mains examination in the light of the marks declared earlier in the results of the mains examination published on 9.10.2007, learned counsel explains that in the result dated 9.10.2007, some clerical error (reservation, roaster, category, etc.) vias detected by the Commission and as such, the Commission had decided to revise the result and accordingly, a revised result after necessary corrections, was published on 13.12.2007. ;