Patna High Court - Orders
Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 November, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8449 of 2008
With
Interlocutory Application No. 4408 of 2012
In
Letters Patent Appeal No. 981 of 2012
======================================================
1. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Joint Secretary, Bihar
Public Service Commission, 15th Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road,
Patna-800001.
2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 th Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 th Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15th Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
.... .... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
.... Respondents/Respondents.
3. Baldeo Choudhary, S/o Shri Ram Pyare Choudhary, resident of village-
Bensagar, P.S.-Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 1.
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anjani Kumar AAG 10
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
6 29-11-2012Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th March 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 8449 of 2008, the respondent-Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') has preferred this 2 Patna High Court LPA No.981 of 2012 (6) dt.29-11-2012 2/4 Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The matter at issue is withholding of the result of the writ petitioner of 45th Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to the advertisement dated 28th December 2001.
On perusal of the record, it appears that in the paper of General Studies-II, the petitioner had been given zero mark. Upon enquiry made by the writ petitioner, it was revealed that he had been given zero mark on account of his having made certain marking in the answer sheet. In challenge to the said decision of the Commission in CWJC No. 8449 of 2008, the learned single Judge has held that the markings made by the writ petitioner were in the general flow of writing and were not offending. Consequently, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the Commission to declare the result of the writ petitioner. Therefore, this Appeal.
The challenge to the action of the Commission was contested by the Commission. According to the Commission every answer sheet contains a specific instruction that no marking should be made in any of the pages of the answer sheet. Nevertheless, the writ petitioner made certain underlining contrary to the instruction issued by the Commission. The Commission, in its meeting held on 1st September 2004, decided that only markings like P.T.O./ Turn Over /K.T.O. be condoned; for any other marking contained in the answer sheet, candidate should be declared to secure zero mark. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, the writ petitioner was given zero mark in the above referred paper of General Studies-II.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the Commission. He has strenuously urged that the underlining made by the writ petitioner cannot be 3 Patna High Court LPA No.981 of 2012 (6) dt.29-11-2012 3/4 condoned. It is contrary to the discipline of the Commission.
The original answer sheet has been produced before us and we have perused the answer sheet. Undoubtedly, the answer sheet contains underlining under certain headings but as held by the learned single Judge, the underlining appears to have been made in natural flow of writing and not with a design to attract attention to any particular part of the answer.
We do agree with Mr. Lalit Kishore that the underlining made by the writ petitioner is contrary to the instruction issued to the candidates. Nevertheless, as held by us and by the learned single Judge, the underlinings seem to have been made in natural flow of writing and not with a view to attracting attention to any part of the answer. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter.
We are alive that the writ petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable delay i.e. by the time the writ petition was filed, the result was declared and all appointments were made. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant relief to the writ petitioner with retrospective effect.
In the event, after declaring the result as directed by the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner, on account of his placement in the select list, becomes entitled to appointment in a particular service; the writ petitioner will be appointed as such; but the writ petitioner will not be entitled to retrospective benefit. In other words, the writ petitioner will take seniority and other service benefits from the date of his appointment and not from any earlier date.
Subject to the above direction, the Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are disposed of.
4 Patna High Court LPA No.981 of 2012 (6) dt.29-11-2012 4/4We however, observe that we do not intend to say that such kind of marking should always be condoned by the Commission. It is entirely the decision of the Commission which shall prevail in this respect; nor should this order encourage any other candidate to seek similar relief.
The answer sheet is returned to the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lalit Kishore.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)