The appellant did number qualify in the written examination and was number called for interview.
A companyy of the mark sheet was sent to him on 1 1 2001.
It was averred in the writ petition that he had secured very good marks in all other papers, namely, General Hindi, General Knowledge, Law of Evidence Procedure, Transfer of Property and Personal Law etc, and had also answered the questions in General Science paper companyrectly and, therefore, he should have been awarded much higher marks in the said paper.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the Commission before the learned Single Judge it was pleaded that in the rules, there was only a provision for scrutiny and there was numberprovision for re evaluation of the answer books.
The Commission found that there was numbermistake and, accordingly, an intimation to that effect was sent to him on 18 7 2001.
The learned Single Judge then directed the standing companynsel for the Patna University to have the answer book re evaluated by expert teachers through the Principal, Science College, Patna.
a Physics teacher and a Biology teacher of Patna Science College, the answer book was returned to the Court by the companynsel.
Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court wherein the main prayer made was that a direction be issued to the Commission to re evaluate his General Science paper.
The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Commission to produce the answer book of the appellant of General Science paper after he had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/ by way of security.
After fresh evaluation of the answer book by two experts, viz.,
We have heard the appellant writ petitioner in person and learned companynsel for the respondents at companysiderable length.
The answer book was shown to the standing companynsel for Patna University, who apparently had science background, and, he was of the opinion that the appellant deserved more marks.
The Commission preferred a Letters Patent appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order dated 16 4 2003 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition CNo.
13322 of 2003 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
He applied for scrutiny of his marks in General Science paper wherein he had secured 35 marks.
The writ petitioner has preferred this appeal by Special Leave against the judgment and order dated 16 4 2003 of a Division Bench of Patna High Court by which the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by Bihar Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission was allowed and the judgment and order dated 11 9 2001 of a learned Single Judge whereby a direction was given to the Commission to reconsider the case of the appellant after treating his marks in the General Science paper as 63 was set aside.
For holding the Judicial Services Competitive Examination, 1999, the Commission issued an advertisement on 19 4 1999.
