Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

394 Jharkhand PSC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4013 of 2008
D.D. 08.08.2008
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
Kalawati Kumari ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
Examination: Defects in the applications :
The petitioner was a candidate for recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers Examination 2007
and she sought direction to allow her to appear in the Examination in Khortha language in place of
Bangla language as per the admit card issued to her – The applicant instead of mentioning one optional
language mentioned as many as 3 languages in the prescribed column – Though such faulty application
could have been rejected on this ground itself the Commission allowed the petitioner to appear in
Bangla language – Court dismissed the application.
Held:
Since the petitioner has proficiency in both the languages in terms of what she has mentioned in the
application the admit card issued to her cannot be said to be faulty in any manner and the petitioner
cannot demand alteration in the admit card.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents,
particularly respondent no.4 to consider her representation to allow her to appear at the Primary
Teachers Examination, 2007 scheduled to be held on 10 th August, 2008 in Khortha in place of Bangla
language.
Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that in the advertisement published by the JPSC for
appointment on the post of Teachers in the primary schools, the petitioner had filled up her application
form mentioning the specific languages “khortha” and Bangla besides Hindi. She has, however, received
admit card with permission to write the examination in Bangla language.
Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission explains that the application form
has not been filled up by the petitioner as required in the advertisement. It had been specifically stated
in the advertisement that applicants should fill up any one language as optional language, but instead of
that, the petitioner has mentioned as many as three languages in the prescribed column. Such faulty