W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2025 ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2025 1. Sushil Kumar Pandey, S/o Hari Shankar Pandey, aged about -43 years, presently residing at B-474, Gali No. 6, Pehla Pusta, Sonia Vihar, P.O. and P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094 and permanent resident of Village- Bhusalpur, Post-Pipari, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, P.S. Sarai Mamrej, Uttar Pradesh-212401. 2. Sukesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Vijay Kumar Mishra, Aged-48, Roll No. 10317 R/o 12B, Main Road, Sarita Voihar, P.O. & P.S. Sarita Vihar Delhi-110076. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The High Court of Jharkhand, through its Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Office At: High Court of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, 2. State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, In Person Mr. Sukesh Kr. Mishra, In Person For the State: Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III --------- Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 11 /03/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioners herein had applied to the post of District Judge advertised vide the Advertisement No. 01/2022/Apptt. The said recruitment to the post of District Judges was being undertaken under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. 2. The main written examination was conducted on 04.09.2022 for filling up of 22 vacancies to the post of District Judges from the Bar. The result of the main written examination was declared on 14.02.2023 and total 66 candidates including the petitioners were declared successful. The High Court of Jharkhand called the petitioners for interview/viva-voce on 12/13/14.03.2023 by issuing call letters for interview. They also appeared W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2025 for the interview along with the others and the result of interview was published on the website of the High Court on 23.03.2023. Only 13 candidates were declared selected against the total advertised vacancies of 22, but marks and merit of those candidates were not put up on the website of the High Court. 3. The petitioner no. 1 along with 4 others filed W.P.(C) No. 475 of 2023 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition noting that the petitioners in that case have all obtained more than 50% marks in viva-voce examination and directed this High Court to communicate to each of the candidates in the writ petition the marks they have obtained in the viva-voce examination. 4. The 2nd petitioner moved two applications on 01.06.2023 under RTI Act, 2005 to the 1st respondent ( the High Court of Jharkhand) seeking information relating to copy of answer sheets of the 2nd petitioner and the complete copy of Minutes of the Full Court Meeting held on 23.03.2023 for the approval of final result for the said post. 5. When there is no response, the 2nd petitioner filed First Appeal dt. 10.07.2023 before the Registrar General of the High Court. 6. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C) No. 753 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 921 of 2023 in the Supreme Court. The said writ petitions were allowed and the High Court was directed to make recommendation for those candidates who have been successful as per the merit of select list for filling up the subsisting notified vacancies without applying the Full Court resolution of the High Court that requires each candidate to get 50% aggregate marks. The Supreme Court quashed the portion of the Full Court resolution dt. 23.03.2023 by which it was decided that only those candidates who have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment for the post of District Judge. It rejected the W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2025 pleas of the High Court that they are entitled to alter the selection criteria after the selection process concluded and marks are declared. 7. Thereafter the merit list was prepared afresh by the selection committee of the High Court, but the marks of the candidates mentioned therein appear to have not been disclosed on the web site of the High Court which is undoubtedly regrettable. 8. According to the petitioners, the tabular form of the merit list of all the candidates appearing in the interview had been filed by the High Court in the Supreme Court along with its counter affidavit on 05.10.2023 during the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 753 of 2023. 9. They alleged that it was technically edited and marks had been drastically reduced either in Paper-I or Paper-II which are not the actual marks awarded by the examiners on the original answer sheets of the petitioners and this Court has to examine the same to do complete justice for the petitioners. 10. Except stating that the date is not mentioned in the tabular form of the merit list, no basis is stated by the petitioners for their assumption that marks had been drastically reduced for them in Paper-I or Paper-II and do not reflect the actual marks awarded. 11. Petitioners further alleged that they have strong belief and they are confident that both of them had been ousted from the final select list of successful candidates by the selection committee of the High Court and on the seats meant for them some other ineligible candidates were selected, recommended and appointed as District Judges and there is some illegality and irregularity in the selection of candidates which can only be discovered after calling forth the original evaluated answer sheets (not Photostat or scanned) of Paper-I and Paper-II of the petitioners and all the other 22 selected candidates. Page 4 of 4 W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2025 12. We have perused the original answer sheets of both the petitioners available in the High Court Registry and we find that the marks given by the examiners in those answer sheets to each of the petitioners are as reflected in the merit list prepared and there has been no reduction of marks as is alleged by the petitioners. 13. Neither the examiners nor Judges in the selection committee nor the members of the Registry have any intention or motive or necessity to do the things alleged by petitioners to harm them. Petitioners cannot be permitted to make wild allegations against an institution like the High Court and it’s Judges who formed part of the selection panel without any basis. 14. Petitioner no. 1 applied for only first three pages of the evaluated answer sheets of Paper-II and the certified copy of the same was supplied to him on 10.12.2024, copy of which is filed as Annexure-21. Petitioners contend that there is no actual mark awarded by the examiner indicated therein. 15. The pages sought by the said petitioner which were supplied to the petitioners deal with the answer of the said petitioner to one question and it appears from the answer sheets that the answer was a long answer. Marks were awarded to the said question also as per answer given by petitioner no.1. So there is no merit in this allegation as well. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall all stand dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. MM/-