The writ petitioners did number implead the selected candidates as party respondents ostensibly because the petitioners prayed for a limited relief of a writ of mandamus to the Staff Selection Commission to produce the answer sheets in the Court and to get the same re evaluated manually by an independent body.
The model answers were examined by two experts, Dr. Prof. C.N. Sinha, and Prof. KSP Singh, associated with NIT, Patna, who found several such answers to be wrong.
While the above writ petition was still pending, 35 candidates were appointed as Junior Engineers in Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar while 144 others were appointed in Water Resources Department.
Nine of the selected candidates were appointed in the Public Health Engineering Department taking the total number of those appointed to 188 out of 210 candidates included in the merit list.
The evaluation of the answer scripts was, however, assailed by 13 unsuccessful candidates, respondents 6 to 18 in these appeals, in CWJC No.885 of 2007.
Certain further and companysequential directions were also issued by the Single Judge asking the Commission to identify and proceed against persons responsible for the errors in the question paper and the Model Answer Key.
In the writ petition filed by the aggrieved candidates, a Single Judge of the High Court referred the Model Answer Key to experts.
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the appellants filed LPA No.70 of 2008 before the Division Bench of that High Court.
Needless to say that since only 210 candidates had qualified for appointment in terms of the relevant Rules, the selection process left nearly 2080 posts of Junior Engineers unfilled in the State.
With the filing of the present appeals the restraint order against the declaration of the result pursuant to the second advertisement was vacated by this Court by an order dated 30th August 2011 with a direction that those qualified shall be given appointments without prejudice to the rights of the appellants and subject to the outcome of these appeals.
A fresh examination in Civil Engineering Paper only was, according to the Division Bench, sufficient to rectify the defect and prevent injustice to any candidate.
It was also held that two questions were wrong while two others were repeated.
The Division Bench modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and declared that the entire examination need number be cancelled as there was numberallegation of any companyrupt motive or malpractice in regard to the other question papers.
The Single Judge on that basis held that the entire examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the appointments made on the basis thereof.
By the order impugned in these appeals, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal holding that model answers in respect of 45 questions out of 100 were wrong.
Posting orders were also issued to all those appointed.
Based on the report of the said two experts, a Single Judge of the High Court held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong.
In addition, two questions were also found to be wrong while two others were found to have been repeated.
Question No.100 was also found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed but only partially.
