The Bihar Public Service Commi vs Vikas Kumar & Anr on 19 May, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

The Bihar Public Service Commi vs Vikas Kumar & Anr on 19 May, 2009

Author: S.K.Katriar

Bench: S.K.Katriar, Kishore K Mandal

Letters Patent Appeal No.178 of 2009
(Against the common judgment and order dated
30.1.2009, passed by learned single Judge in CWJC
Nos.11858, 16015, 16056, 15479, 16993, 16462 of
2008)
1. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
through its Secretary, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-
800001
2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission
through its Secretary, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna -
800001
3. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service
Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna - 800001
............Appellants

Versus
1. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, son of Sher Bahadur
Singh, resident of Village Alipur, PS Arrah (M), District
Bhojpur
...Petitioner-Respondent
1st set
2. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
.... Respondents
-Respondents 2nd set

with
LPA No.182 of 2009
THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
Others ..... ......... Appellants
Versus
RAJKISHORE & ORS ......... Respondents
with

LPA No.180 of 2009
THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
Others ........................ .......Appellants
Versus
SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS-------Respondents
With
-2-

LPA No.179 of 2009
THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
Others ........... Appellants
Versus
MRITUNJAY KUMAR & ORS ......Respondents
with

LPA No.184 of 2009
THE CHAIRMAN,B.P.S.C.& ORS .....Appellants
Versus
VAGISH CHANDRA JHA & ORS ....Respondents
with

LPA No.181 of 2009
THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
Others ...... ......Appellants
Versus
VIKAS KUMAR & ANR .... ......Respondents
*******
For the Appellants : Mr. P K Shahi
Advocate General
with
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Lalit Kishore
Addl. Advocate General III
with
Mr.Satyabir Bharti,Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh
(In LPA No. 178 of 2009) Senior Advocate

(In LPA No. 180 of 2009) : Mr. Mahesh Narain Parbat
Advocate

(In LPA No. 181 of 2009) : Mr. Ranjit Jha, Advocate

(In LPA No. 182 of 2009) : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh
Senior Advocate

For the Intervenors : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha
(in all the cases) Senior Advocate
*********
-3-

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K MANDAL

S K Katriar,J. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to

as `the Commission') has preferred this batch of six appeals against a

common judgment dated 30.1.2009, passed by a learned single Judge of

this Court, whereby he has allowed the six writ petitions, has set aside

the Preliminary Test (hereinafter referred to as `P.T.') of the combined

competitive examination for the 48th to 52nd batches for the reasons to

be discussed hereinafter, and has directed the Commission to hold fresh

P.T. The six writ petitions raised common issues of facts and law, were

disposed of by a common judgment, and the appeals are being disposed

of by a common judgment. The basic facts shall be drawn from CWJC

No.11858 of 2008 (Mukesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Others),

as well as LPA No.178 of 2009, unless needed by specific reference to

a particular writ petition or appeal.

2. The Commission issued advertisement no.4 of 2007,

which was published in the local dailies on 6.11.2007, inviting

applications from eligible candidates for the P.T. of the combined

competitive examination for 48th to 52nd batches. The entire selection
-4-

process comprises of three phases. The first one comprises of the PT,

the second one of written test, and the final phase of viva-voce test. The

answer sheets of the PT in the Optical Marker Reader (OMR, in brief),

was programmed to be deciphered by a computer software in an

objective-type answer sheet. The Commission received a total number

of 2,63,265 applications. Admit cards were issued to all the candidates,

but 1,76,984 candidates appeared in the PT, at 530 centres, in 34

districts, spread all over the State of Bihar, and was held on 25.5.2008.

3. Before we proceed further, we would like to indicate the

format of the PT. The candidates were required to answer all the 150

questions with multiple choice of answers. It was of objective type. The

candidates were supplied the Question Booklets covering 40 pages, and

the answer sheet of one sheet both sides of which were used. Question

Booklets were marked A, B, C, and D series. The four series were

expected to incorporate just the same 150 questions, with the same

multiple choice of answers. The difference in the four series was that

arrangement, i.e. serial number, of the questions were different in the

four series to avoid copying in the halls. One candidate got one series

which he could carry back home. Each candidate was also given one

answer sheet both sides of which had to be used as per the instructions,

the first page of which contained columns to be filled in the own

handwriting of the candidate. The reverse page, namely, page no. 2
-5-

provided the spaces for the candidates to indicate their preference of

suggested answers in the Question Booklets. Only black/blue ink ball

point pen could be used. There were different computer programming

to decipher every answer sheet as per the series of the Question Booklet

given to each candidate. As many as twelve important instructions were

printed on the Question Booklets to be read and followed by the

candidates.

4. The writ proceedings were confined to two kinds of objections,

some of the questions were incorrect or the suggested answers were

incorrect and, secondly, the Question Booklets supplied to some

candidates were defective in various ways. In so far as the first kind of

objections are concerned, as per its set norms and established

procedure, the Commission constituted an expert committee to

evaluate the key answers given by question setters. The Committee

which dealt with the first aspect of the matter comprised of the

following members :

(i) Dr. B K Jha
Former Head of the Department of Political Science
Magadh University
(ii) Prof. Dr. Surendra Gopal
Former Head of the Department, History
Patna University
(iii) Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad
Director, Khudabaksh Library, Patna

(iv) Dr. Bhagwan Prasad Singh
Professor, Economics Department
-6-

Patna University

(v) Dr. Randhir Singh
Head of Department, Public Administration
A N College, Patna
(vi) Dr. N P Sinha
Retd. Head of Department
Geography Department, Patna University, Patna
(vii) Prof. Ram Vijay Singh
Retd. Professor, Mathematics Department
B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur
(viii) Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha
Professor & Head of Department
Statistics Department, Patna University, Patna
(ix) Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Professor & Head of Department
Botany Department, Patna University, Patna
(x) Padmashree Dr. Vijay Prakash Singh
Professor & Head of Department of Medicine
Patna Medical College, Patna
(xi) Dr. N Laxmi Nath, Vice Chancellor
Chanakya National Law University, Patna
(xii) Dr. L M Rai
Retd. Professor & Head of Department
Magadh University, Bodh Gaya

The Committee's report was submitted on 7th July 2008, before

publication of the PT results, and is on record (Annexure 5 to the

Commission's Supplementary Affidavit in LPA No. 178 of 2009). The

Committee was of the view that some of the answers printed in the

Question Booklets were incorrect and, therefore, recommended

deletion of a few questions. The report was placed before the

Commission on 31.7.2008 and 7.8.2008, and the Commission decided

to delete 14 questions from the reckoning, and evaluated the answer

sheets with respect to the remaining 136 questions leading to the PT
-7-

results published on 19.9.2008. This was before publication of the PT

result.

5. In so far as the second kind of objections are concerned, before

publication of the PT results, the Commission constituted another

Committee on 14.8.2008, comprising of the following five members to

examine the grievances of 94 candidates who had submitted their

representations/complaints alleging duplication of questions, and mis-

binding or mis-structuring of the Question Booklets:-

(i) Prof. K P Sinha, Ex-Vice Chancellor
B R Ambedkar Bihar University,Muzaffarpur
(ii)Dr. V Mukunda Das
Director, Chandragupta Institute of Management
Patna
(iii) Dr. L N Ram
Ex Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna
(iv) Dr. Surendra Gopal
Retd. Professor,Deptt. of History
Patna University, Patna
(v) Dr. Chakradhar Narain Sinha
Retd. Professor, N.I.T. Patna

The Committee submitted its report on 19.8.2008. Copies of the report

are found at different places of the proceedings. It is marked

Annexure-D to the Commission's counter affidavit. The Committee

had examined 94 applications regarding defective Booklets, and did

not find any substance in their objections. The Commission accepted

the report in its entirety.
-8-

6. On 19.9.2008 the result of the PT was published. 19,318

candidates were declared to have passed the PT and were sent up for

final examination. It is relevant to state in view of Clause 6

incorporated in the result of the PT (reproduced in Paragraph- 28

below), the aggrieved candidates were called upon to submit their

objections/representations with respect to the selection process, and /or

conduct of the PT, and the result.

7. The Commission received altogether 5713 representations till

17.10.2008, over and above 94 objections discussed hereinabove.

Paragraph-20 of the Commission's supplementary counter affidavit is

reproduced hereinbelow :-

" 20. That it is submitted that in all 5713 candidates filed
representations by 17.10.2008. The representations
mainly relate to the following:
(a) Re-totalling/Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets
(b) Wrong answers
© Mistake about the category (reservation)
(d) Claim to obtain marks equal to cut-off marks or
more
(e) the roll no. and marks of the candidate not
available on website."

We are not concerned with all the objections.

8. The selection process generated lot of grievances amongst the

candidates leading to six writ petitions. The same are as follows :-

(a) CWJC No. 11858 of 2008
(Mukesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.),
giving rise to present LPA No. 178 of 2009
(b) CWJC No. 16015 of 2008
-9-

(Rajkishore & Ors. vs. BPSC & Ors.),
giving rise to LPA No.182 of 2009
© CWJC No. 16056 of 2008
(Satyendra Kumar Singh vs.BPSC),
giving rise to LPA No.180 of 2009
(d) CWJC No. 15479 of 2008
(Mrityunjay Kumar & Ors. vs. BPSC),
giving rise to LPA No.179 of 2009
(e) CWJC No. 16993 of 2008
(Vagish Chandra Jha & Ors. vs. BPSC),
giving rise to LPA No.184 of 2009
(f) CWJC No. 16462 of 2008
(Vikas Kumar & another vs. BPSC),
giving rise to LPA No.181 of 2009

All the 37 writ petitioners are unsuccessful candidates. Out of

these 37 writ petitioners, 6 of them allege supply of defective Question

Booklets which were misbound and were not replaced. The contest

before the learned single Judge was between the unsuccessful

candidates and the Commission. After consideration of the matter, the

six writ petitions have been allowed by a common judgment dated

30.1.2009, whereby the PT has been set aside on the ground that some

of the booklets contained more than 150 questions. The questions were

not printed in the same sequence in all the Question Booklets of one

series. Some of the questions were repetitive, or incorrectly formulated,

or the suggested answers of some of them were incorrect. In the

estimation of the learned single Judge, the defects are so all-pervasive

that it would be unsafe to depend on the PT. It has, therefore, been
- 10 -

further directed to hold fresh PT. Aggrieved by the judgment, the

Commission has preferred the aforesaid six appeals.

9. Learned Advocate general has appeared in support of the

appeals and submits that as many as "12 important instructions" were

printed on page 1 of the Question Booklet, and the more important

ones were highlighted in bold print. He further submits that the

materials on record clearly state that a large number of candidates had

taken aid of the instructions, and had the defective Question Booklets

replaced. Those who failed to take advantage of the situation in the

examination hall will have to blame themselves. He submits that there

is a duty on the Commission to hold a fair selection process, but there

is an equally corresponding duty on the candidates to appear at the

examination as per the instructions and the code of discipline

formulated by the Commission for uniform application. He relies on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public

Service Commission vs. B M Vijaya Shankar [ 1992(2) SCC 206,

Para 3]. He submits in the same vein that condition no.4 of the

question booklet clearly provided for replacement of the defective

Question Booklet. Apart from those who asked for replacement and

got the same in the examination hall, 94 of the candidates represented

before the Commission which have been examined by the five-

member Committee from amongst whom only six have approached
- 11 -

this Court with the grievance. Learned Advocate General further

submits that no mala fides have been attributed to the Commission. On

the contrary, its fairness in identifying the defects in the selection

process and the further effort to rectify the same is writ large on the

proceedings. Even before publication of the result, the Commission

constituted two Committees and remedial measures as suggested were

taken. After publication of the result, the Commission invited

representations/objections from aggrieved candidates. The matter was

examined in depth and remedial measures were taken. He relies on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadanand Halo vs.

Momtaj Ali Sheikh [2008(4) SCC 619).

9.1 He also submits that enormity of holding such a test

conducted by human agencies may bring about some grievances. In

view of the bonafide attempts on the part of the Commission to rectify

the defects in the selection process, hardly any grievance survives

except those of the unsuccessful candidates who were unable to

measure up to the minimum requirements of PT.

9.2 He next submits that a large number of vacancies exist in

the State of Bihar. According to the Rules, the selection process has to

take place once every year after taking into account the anticipated

vacancies till December of the year following, which, for historical

reasons, could not take place as a result of which the State
- 12 -

Government amended the Rules enabling it to conduct the selection

process for more than one batch at a time. The net result is that

examinations of the 48th to 52nd batches are being held together. In

other words, no examination has taken place since 2001. The PT has

taken more than the needed time as a result of which the examination

for the 53rd to 55th batches are now due. He, therefore, submits that in

the larger interest of the State, minor defects, if any, may be ignored.

10. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioners has, in his elaborate submissions, pointed out a large

number of defects in the conduct of the PT. The selection process is

afflicted by as many as 30 defects. He has pointed out that a large

number of questions were wrongly formulated, and many of the

suggested answers were also wholly incorrect. He next submits that

out of the 14 questions which have been deleted from consideration,

seven were erroneously deleted. He next submits that a number of

questions were repeated as a result of which many of them got more

than 150 questions to be answered. He also pointed out that there was

variation in the English version and the Hindi version in the same

series. He next submits that the instructions clearly stated that a wrong

Question Booklet had to be replaced by another Booklet of the same

series which was not followed. In other words, for example, the

candidates who were given A or C series were replaced by Booklet B
- 13 -

series, as a result of which the computer format evaluated the answer

sheets erroneously. He also submits that the instructions were very

onerous and unreasonable, incapable of being followed within the time

fixed for the examination. Matching/extra time was not allowed to the

candidates whose Question Booklets were replaced. The two enquiry

reports were eye-wash, were as per the dictates of the Commission, to

save its own skin. The reports are so superficial that the same do not

inspire confidence. He submits in the same vein that the reasons

assigned by the two Committees are contrary to the materials on

record. The Commission has not come with clean hands. He relies on

the following reported judgments :

(i) 2007 (8) SCC 449 (para 33)
(Prestige Light Ltd. vs. State Bank of India)
(ii) 2007(10) SCC 635
(Rajkumar Soni vs. State of U.P.)

He wrapped up his elaborate submissions by submitting that,

in the interest of justice to the entire body of candidates, the PT as a

whole should be scrapped. He relies on the following reported

judgments :-

(i) 2002 (3) SCC 146 (para 8)
(Union of India vs. Chakradhar)
(ii) 2008 (1) PLJR 357
(Ajay Kumar vs. State of Bihar)
which was affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court
(reported in 2008(2) PLJR 310)
- 14 -

11. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, appearing for the writ petitioner

of CWJC No. 16015 of 2008 (LPA No. 182 of 2009), submitted that

the amended Rules permitting examination of five batches at a time is

illegal. He next submits that it is a case of wide-spread malaise and,

therefore, the PT as a whole has to be set aside. Any relief short of

that will do injustice to a large number of candidates. He lastly

submits that powers of this Court to do justice is unlimited. In a case

like the present one, the relief should not be confined to the writ

petitioners alone, and should be extended to each and every sufferer.

He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder

Pal Yadav vs. Union of India (1985 PLJR (SC) 36 (page 39).

12. Mr. Mahesh Narain Parbat for the writ petitioner of CWJC

No.16056 of 2008 (LPA No. 180 of 2009), submits that the petitioners

were not supplied the replacement Question Booklets inspite of

persistent requests. He submitted his complaint/representation dated

2.6.2008 (Annexure 5). He has also expressed lack of confidence in

the two Committees. The booklets of many of the candidates had

more than 150 questions. He has also relied on the Commission's

instructions to the Centre Superintendents which did not contain

instructions to supply replacement Question Booklets in appropriate

cases.
- 15 -

13. The remaining writ petitioners in the other three appeals

adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioners in CWJC No. 11858 of 2008.

14. Learned Advocate General as well as the Additional

Advocate General III in their separate sets of submissions in reply

attempted to counter the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the writ petitioners.

15. We have perused the materials on record and considered the

submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We shall first deal with

the question relating to the grievance in respect of the defective

questions and answers suggested in the Question Booklet. As stated

hereinabove, the PT was held on 25.5.2008, the Commission soon

thereafter as per its norms and on its motion, constituted a Committee

of twelve distinguished academicians of the State to evaluate the key

answers given by question setters. The Committee in its report dated

7.7.2008 (Annexure 5 in LPA No. 178 of 2009), suggested that 14 out

of 150 questions were either wrongly formulated or the suggested

answers were erroneous. The Commission considered the report and

deleted 14 questions from the reckoning, as a result of which each and

every candidate was evaluated for the remaining 136 questions. This

takes care of the grievance raised on behalf of the writ petitioners that
- 16 -

the Question Booklets contained defective questions and defective

answers.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken us through the

Question Booklet in detail to point out the anomalies. For example,

question no.1 of Booklet A series reads as follows :-

"1. What is the sequence number of Ms. Pratibha
Patil as President of the Republic of India?

(A) 10th (B) 11th
© 12th (D) 13th

The writ petitioner has produced before us a document issued by the

Election Commission of India to show that Smt. Pratibha Patil is the

13th President of India. On the other hand, the learned Advocate

General has produced before us a copy of the document released by

the Rashtrapati Bhawan showing that she is the 12th President of India.

In this connection, instruction no.9 printed on the Question Booklet

may be reproduced hereinbelow:-

"9. Questions and their responses are printed in English
and Hindi versions in this booklet. Each question
comprises four responses - (A),(B),(C) and (D). You are
to select ONLY ONE correct response and mark in your
Answer Sheet. In case you feel that there are more than
one correct answer, mark the response which you consider
the best. In any case choose ONLY ONE response for
each question. Your total marks will depend on the
number of correct responses marked by you in the Answer
Sheet." (Emphasis added)
- 17 -

The instructions itself stated that ".......in case you feel that there are

more than one correct answer, mark the response which you consider

the best......." In such a situation, evaluation of the answer to this

question will entirely depend on the correct answer determined by the

Chief Examiner, whether she is the 12th or the 13th President of the

Republic of India. Both the documents supplied by learned counsel

for the parties indicate the correct position, but from different angles.

Both are equally correct answers and, therefore, this instruction takes

care of the situation. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India,

had occupied the office for two consecutive terms. From this angle,

she is the 12th President of India, and in that situation the communiqué

of the Rashtrapati Bhawan is correct. However, the other document

supplied by the Election Commission of India, which is charged with

the duty of conducting the election of the President of India, is equally

correct, but from a different angle. The Election Commission

conducted the thirteenth election. This is apart from the position that a

Committee of twelve distinguished academicians examined the entire

Question Booklets and have deleted 14 incorrect questions. Questions

in such objective type tests are intelligently formulated, and the

answer has to be selected in relation to the preciosity of language used

in formulating the question.

16.1) Question no.70 of Booklet no. A series reads as follows:-
- 18 -

"70. The serial number of Mr. Mohammad Ansari
as Vice President of India is

(A) 10th (B) 11th
© 12th (D) 13th

The explanation is comparable to the previous one.

16.2) Question no.149 of the Booklet no. A series reads as
follows:-

"149. Which one of the following is correct about
the permanent settlement introduced in Bihar

(A) The Zaminders were deprived of the ownership
of the land.
(B) The right of ownership of land was made
hereditary and transferable for the Zaminders.
© Land revenue was constitutionalised
(D) Abolition of Zamindari"

The definition of `permanent settlement' as found in the Historical

Dictionary of India by Surjit Mansing, is as follows :-

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT : A term applied to the
form of revenue settlement introduced by the British
Governor General Lord Cornwallis (q.v.) in 1793 to areas
controlled by the East India Company (q.v.) in Bengal,
Bihar, and Orissa (qq.v.). One objective of the new
settlement was to end the rapacious system of annual
reassessments and contracts to tax collectors introduced
when the East India Company took over the rights of
dewani in 1765. Another declared objective of Lord
Cornwallis was to create in Bengal a body of hereditary
landlords who might extend cultivation, maximize
production, and generally function with a sense of public
purpose espoused by the eighteenth-century enlightened
aristocracy in England.
The distinguishing feature of the Permanent
Settlement, therefore, was that tax collecting agents were
confirmed in their positions for perpetuity in return for a
- 19 -

fixed annual payment of dues to the government. They
were forbidden to evict tenants or dispossess the actual
cultivators of the soil.
The consequences of the Permanent Settlement
were not as salutary as Cornwallis' intent. While taxes or
dues to the government remained constant, actual rents
rose, increasing the burden on the cultivator without
adding to the revenues of the government. Moreover,
revenue collection was harsh, unmitigated even in bad
seasons. Third, members of the new class of zaminder did
not fit the ideal portrait painted by Cornwallis, who failed
to understand the Indian reality. It is noteworthy that no
other presidency in British India emulated this system in
the various revenue settlements they made and that the
Bengal Rent Act of 1859 modified the 1793 law by giving
occupancy rights to tenants of twelve years' standing.
Many twentieth-century historians and economists
of all nationalities regard the Permanent Settlement as an
important factor contributing not only to the social
tensions of eastern India in the nineteenth century, but to
its continuing social backwardness and agricultural
impoverishment." (Emphasis added)

Answer no. B was obviously the best answer.

16.3) Question no. 53 of Question Booklet no. A series reads as
follows:-

"53. Which of the following instrument measures
blood pressure

(A) Sphero meter
(B) Animo meter
© Spigomoho meter
(D) Am meter

We have not the slightest manner of doubt that the question is

accurately formulated. The correct answer is at no.(C), which reads

"Spigomoho meter", though with incorrect spelling. The Oxford

Concise Medical Dictionary gives the correct spelling of the
- 20 -

instrument as "Sphygmomanometer". We are of the view that

incorrect spelling of a suggested answer, which was quite close to the

correct answer, cannot qualify for outright rejection.

16.4) To conclude this aspect of the matter, the defective questions

suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners are taken care of by

instruction no.9, and have also been taken care of by the report of the

twelve-member Committee which was accepted by the Commission

with certain modifications, and 14 questions were deleted. Everybody

was earlier required to answer the same 150 questions, and after

deletion the same 136 questions. Therefore, none gained any

advantage, nor anybody suffered any prejudice, in a situation where

the candidates had no choice of selection between different questions.

17. We must also consider the contention advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners that 7 questions were erroneously deleted.

We find it difficult to sit in judgment over the report of the twelve-

member Committee comprising of five distinguished academicians of

the State. In any case, we have also made an attempt to assess the

questions with allegedly defective answers brought to our notice by

learned counsel for the petitioners, and have been considered

hereinabove. This is apart from the fairness shown by the Commission

by making serious efforts to remove the defects.
- 21 -

18. We now pass on to another serious grievance raised by learned

counsel for the petitioners, namely, some of the Booklets contained

more than 150 questions, or questions, or the pages were repetitive

etc. We call attention to instruction no.4 of the Question Booklet

series A which reads as follows :-

"4. Immediately after commencement of the examination,
you should check up your Question Booklet and ensure
that the Question Booklet series is printed on the top right-
hand corner of the booklet. The booklet contains 40
printed pages and no page or question is missing or
unprinted or torn or repeated. If you find any defect in this
booklet, get it replaced immediately by a complete booklet
of the same series." (Emphasis added)

In other words, the instruction clearly stated that the Question Booklet

contained only 40 pages, which could have been checked very

quickly. Failure to do so cannot go to the debit of the Commission.

Secondly, the reports of all the Centre Superintendents are on record.

It is evident on a plain reading of the same that some of the Question

Booklets suffered from the defects pointed out by the writ petitioners,

and it is equally manifest that the Question Booklets of a large

number of them were replaced in the examination hall. Furthermore,

94 complaints were received by the Commission pointing out this

defect. The Commission examined the representations/objections and

came to a tentative conclusion that the grievances need deeper

scrutiny. It, therefore, promptly constituted a Committee of five
- 22 -

distinguished academicians of the State who submitted their report

dated 19.8.2008. The same is not in the nature of a full-length

judgment which is not expected, but it does serialize the grievances in

a systematic manner and records its conclusions. On a plain reading of

the same, apart from the attendant circumstances, we do not get any

impression that it was as per the dictates of the Commission. In other

words, the grievances of the candidates were taken care of at two

stages. Firstly, in the examination hall itself where the Question

Booklets of a large number of candidates were replaced on their

request, and, secondly, by the scrutiny of the five-member Committee.

It is clear from the reports of the Centre Superintendents that the

examinations were held in a peaceful atmosphere, free from any

blemish, and the Question Booklets of many were replaced as per

their request. The reports of 25 Centre Superintendents stated that

request for replacement were promptly complied with and were given

the replacement Question Booklets. Six of the writ petitioners now

state before this Court that they did not get the replacement Question

Booklets inspite of persistent request appears to us to be an after-

thought. In any case, in order to ensure justice to such candidates, the

Commission constituted the Committee which examined as many as

94 representations/objections.
- 23 -

19. We must deal with another contention advanced on behalf

of the petitioners. It has been contended that candidates were initially

given series A or series C Question Booklets which were replaced by

series B Booklet, as a result of which the OMR must have incorrectly

read those answer sheets. The Commission has stated in its rejoinder

to the counter affidavit in LPA No. 178 of 2009 that the key to the

answer of series B of OMR were replaced to adjudge the evaluation

correctly. Paragraph -12 of the rejoinder is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"12. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 32
of the counter affidavit so far as it relates to Annexure-M
of the second counter affidavit of the Commission
regarding ten candidates whose question booklets of A
and C series were replaced by B series question booklets,
it is stated that evaluation of their answer sheets has been
done by key answer of B series by OMR. Thus the
contention of respondent no.1 that proper scanning has
not been done by the Computer (OMR) is denied
herewith."

This takes care of this part of the grievance of the writ petitioners.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that

the conditions were very onerous, difficult to be followed, and

matching time was not allowed to tackle the replacement Question

Booklets. We have already dealt with one aspect of the matter in

relation to instruction no.4 which states that it comprises of 40 pages,

the counting of which would take very little time without making any

significant erosion in the available time to answer 150 questions.
- 24 -

Secondly, 150 questions had to be answered in 120 minutes. The

questions not being of descriptive nature, the candidates were required

to make a selection out of four suggested answers to tackle one

question. Therefore, answering each question will take less than the

apportioned time for each question. In other words, every candidate

was provided with adequate time to detect the defects and tackle the

replacement Question Booklet. We must state that it may leave some

of the candidates with the grievance. It is, however, not possible to

provide a tailor-made format to every candidate keeping in view the

enormity of the selection process.

21. The stringency and the need to follow such instructions in

tests for public recruitment was considered by the Supreme Court in

the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B M Vijaya

Shankar (supra). That was with respect to a recruitment test for

selection to the State Civil Service. Clause (a) of the instructions

stated that "Before commencing your answers please write your

not write your name or register number or sign anywhere in the

answer book or on any loose sheets, such as precis sheets, maps,

graph papers, etc." The respondents who appeared for the test wrote

their roll numbers not only on the cover page, in the spaces provided

for it, but even at other places in the answer book in disregard of the
- 25 -

instruction issued by the Commission. Such answer books were not

subjected to evaluation which was challenged before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the applications and

directed the Commission to evaluate the answer books. The matter

reached the Supreme Court and it has been observed in the judgment

that the Tribunal in issuing directions approached the matter

technically and attempted to make out much where it would have been

better part of the discretion to refuse to interfere. The Tribunal

completely misdirected itself in this regard. Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the

judgment are reproduced hereinbelow :-

"3. Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the
examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty
and morality in the society the insistence by the
Commission that no attempt should be made of
identification of the candidate by writing his roll number
anywhere is in the larger public interest. It is well known
that the first page of the answer book on which roll
number is written is removed and a fictitious code number
is provided to rule any effort of any approach to the
examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll
number would have approached the examiner. He may
have committed a bonafide mistake. But that is not
material. What was attempted to be achieved by the
instruction was to minimize any possibility or chance of
any abuse. Larger public interest demands insistence of
observance of instruction rather than its breach.

........ ............ ............ ........

"5. ...Tribunal in issuing directions approached the
matter technically and attempted to make out much where
it would have been better part of discretion to refuse to
- 26 -

interfere. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself in
this regard. In our opinion its order cannot be maintained."
(Emphasis added)

22. Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

Ganesh Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar [1995 (2) PLJR, presented

a comparable situation. The Division Bench observed as follows :-

"35. Thus, the suggestive answers of four questions
i.e. questions no.82, 78, 121 and 130 are incorrect.
Two of them have already been noticed by the
Commission and the marks have been awarded to all
the candidates. So far as other two questions are
concerned, the suggestive answers are incorrect.
Now, the question is as to whether on this ground
alone the preliminary test has to be held to be
vitiated. The total marks in the preliminary test is
150. It is an admitted fact that more than one lac
candidates had appeared in the examination and
thereafter 11,000 candidates have been selected for
appearing in the main examination. The unsuccessful
candidates did not object to the aforesaid mistakes
either during the examination or filed any objection
soon after the examination that they were prejudiced
and suffered because of the aforesaid wrong
suggestive answers On the other hand, they waited
for result of the examination and only when they
became unsuccessful they have come out with this
case in this Court. They have stated in the writ
applications that they had brought the aforesaid
mistakes to the notice of the Commission, but
nothing has been brought on their behalf on the
record to show that such things have been brought to
the notice of the Commission, the Commission has
emphatically denied that at any point of time they
informed about the mistakes in response to the
questions.

"36. No doubt, there are mistakes in the alternative
answers or responses to the four questions, but on
that basis it cannot be said that the Commission
- 27 -

adopted any unfair means or acted in an unfair
manner, on the other hand, the aforesaid mistakes
appear to have been committed by the experts to
whom the work of setting of questions and their
suggestive answers was entrusted. It cannot be said
that there was unfair treatment to the non-selectees in
particular. All the candidates including the
successful candidates have answered the same set of
questions and in that view of the matter either all the
candidates have suffered equally or took advantages
of wrong suggestive answers. In that view of the
matter, inspite of the aforesaid errors, in my view, it
would not be proper to quash the preliminary test for
the aforesaid defects."

23. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has also raised a

grievance that the two reports were an eye-wash and were at the

dictates of the Commission. We can quite see that the members of the

two Committees are distinguished academicians of the State. From the

very description of their designations, it appears that all of them

(except one) are retired persons and have not to gain anything in life.

In the absence of any tangible proof, on the sole basis of the counsel's

ingenuity shown during the course of oral submissions, it is difficult

to accept that they acted on the dictates of the Commission. On the

contrary, we feel that the two reports dealt with two sets of

grievances, and record their respective minutes in their reports in a

systematic manner, may not be in the nature of a full-length judgment

of court. The contention is rejected.
- 28 -

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that

the Commission has not come with clean hands. The contention is

stated only to be rejected. The candidates, not the Commission, were

the petitioners before the writ court. Secondly, the Commission has

placed on record all the relevant materials for an effective

adjudication. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners

relate to a situation where the aggrieved persons who had approached

the court, were found to be guilty of not approaching the court with

clean hands. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioners in

support of their contention are wholly inappropriate in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 16015 of

2008 has contended that the Rules are bad in law. The contention is

stated only to be rejected, being wholly beyond the frame of the writ

petition, which was confined to the fairness of the selection process.

In view of the provisions of the Patna High Court Rules, the vires of

statutory Rules cannot be considered by a single Judge. Law is well

settled that those of the candidates who appeared at the test conducted

under the amended Rules cannot turn around and challenge it on that

ground. Furthermore, in view of the position that vires of the Rules

were not challenged in the writ proceedings, it would not be
- 29 -

appropriate for us to make any comment on the validity or otherwise

of the amended Rules.

26. Enormity of such a huge selection process has to be

appreciated. In response to the advertisement, 2,63,265 applications

were received, admit cards were issued to all of them which by

necessary implication meant that sitting accommodation, as well as

like number of Question Booklets and answer sheets, had to be kept

ready for all of them. The Commission had to make sitting

arrangements at as many as 530 centres, in 34 districts of the State, to

accommodate 2,63,265 candidates. It is another matter that 1,76,984

candidates appeared at the test which became known only after test

commenced. Evaluation of such a large number of answer sheets, to

collate the results, and to publish the same according to the system, of

19,318 successful candidates, is a stupendous job. In this background,

some defects are bound to happen and, unless those go to the root of

the selection process and is of the nature of wholesale malaise or

dishonesty or some oblique motive, can lead to cancellation of the

whole of the selection process. The second and the third phase of the

selection process are yet to commence. Mistakes have undoubtedly

taken place which have been discussed hereinabove, and the

Commission has made sincere and fair attempts to rectify the same. In

the totality of the situation, we are convinced that it would be most
- 30 -

inappropriate to cancel the entire selection process. The grievances of

the aggrieved persons have been considered by the Commission and

discussed hereinabove. The remaining/surviving grievances shall be

taken care of by the court hereinafter.

27. The judgment of the Superme in Sadanand Halo v.

Mamtaz Ali Sheikh (supra) may be noticed. That was a case where

the selection process for recruitment of 5500 Constables was held in

25 districts of Assam for which as many as two lacs candidates took

part. The Supreme Court observed that validity of recruitment could

not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. After participating

in the selection process, the candidates could not indulge in a roving

enquiry. Paragraphs 58 to 60 of the judgment are reproduced

hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:-

"58. It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving
inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High
Court not only engaged itself into a non-permitted fact-
finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of
the amicus curiae, or as the case may be, the scrutiny
team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While
testing the fairness of the selection process wherein
thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court
should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic
findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a
position of a fact-finding commission, that too, more
particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were
unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should,
therefore, have restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ
petition and the say of the respondents. Unfortunately, the
High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself
for the Selection Committee and also in the process
- 31 -

assumed the role of an appellate tribunal which was, in
our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted
this writ petition into a public interest litigation without
any justification.

"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful
candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection
process. There are of course exceptions carved out by this
Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by
this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S.
Vinod Kumar where one of us (Sinha,J.) was a party. This
was a case where different cut-off marks were fixed for
the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe candidates. This Court in para 10 of its
judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that
there was a power in the employer to fix the cut-off marks
which power was neither denied nor disputed and further
that the cut-off marks were fixed on a rational basis and,
therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also
referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v.
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla where in has been held
specifically that when a candidate appears in the
examination without protest and subsequently is found to
be not successful in the examination, the question of
entertaining the petitioner challenging such examination
would not arise. The Court further made observations in
para 34 of the judgment to the effect : (S.Vinodh Kumar
case, SCC p.107, para 19)
"19......`34. There is thus no doubt that
while question of any estoppel by conduct
would not arise in the contextual facts but the
law seems to be well settled that in the event
a candidate appears at the interview and
participates therein, only because the result of
the interview is not "palatable" to him, he
cannot turn round and subsequently contend
that the process of interview was unfair or
there was some lacuna in the process.' "

In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain
exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the Court
did not go into those exceptions since the same were not
material.
- 32 -

"60. In our opinion the first basic thing for such a
selection process would be the lack of bona fides or, as the
case may be, malafide exercise of powers by those who
were at the helm of selection process. Both the courts
below have not recorded any finding that they found any
mala fides on the part of any of the State officials who
headed the interviews. On the other hand the tenor of the
judgments shows that the whole process did not suffer
from mala fides, lack of bona fides, bias or political
interference. In Union of India v. Bikash Kumar this Court
observed in para 14 thus : ( SCC p.195 )
"14. When a Selection Committee
recommends selection of a person, the
same cannot be presumed to have been
done in a mechanical manner in absence
of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A
presumption arises in regard to the
correctness of the official act. The party
who makes any instant case, no such
allegation was made. The selection
process was not found to be vitiated. No
illegality was brought to our notice."

28. In view of the materials placed before us, we are

convinced that the Commission has acted with fairness and sincerity.

The two Committees were constituted before publication of the PT

result. The recommendations of the two Committees were accepted,

the results were published after implementing its suggestions, and

went a long way in redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved

candidates. Noticing the situation that some defects in the selection

process might have escaped attention constituting the second chapter

of grievances, the Commission had once again with utmost fairness,
- 33 -

incorporated Clause -6 in the PT result , inviting

objections/complaints, and is reproduced hereinbelow:

" 6- fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ds fy;s lQy@vlQy
mEehnokj fnukad 17-10-2008 dh la/;k 5 cts rd viuk vH;kosnu
LihM iksLV@fuf"pr Mkd ls Hkst ldrs gSAa ;g li'V fd;k tkrk
gS fd vH;kosnu fnukad 17-10-2008 dh la/;k 5 cts rd izkIr ugha
gksus ij ml ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA vr% vH;kosnu bl izdkj
Hksts fd fnukad 17-10-2008 dh la/;k 5 cts rd v/kksgLrk{kjh ds
dk;kZy; esa vo"; izkIr gks tk,A "

The Commission was mindful of the defects and, therefore, on its

own motion, invited objections/representations from the aggrieved

candidates which have been duly considered. There are materials on

record to show that, in order to redress the grievances of the aggrieved

candidates, the Commission issued letters to 134 such candidates,

calling them for the second phase of the selection process. Paragraph-

21 of the Commission's supplementary counter affidavit in the writ

proceeding is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"21. That the Commission held several meetings i.e. on
8.11.2008

, 10.11.2008, 11.11.2008, 12.11.2008, 13.11.2008, 28.11.2008 and 1.12.2008. Careful examination of all the complaints was made. 1. It was found that first complaint relating to retotalling was wrong. On retotalling non change/difference in marks was found. 2. Since the matter was subjudice, the Commission decided to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Regarding mistake about category (reservation) it was found that out of 146 such applications the claim of 126 was found to be correct and it was resolved to publish their results which were published on 2.12.2008 giving these candidates extra time to apply for main examination.

4. The fourth type of complaint was found to be incorrect.

5. It was found that 20 candidates had wrongly encoded

- 34 -

their roll nos. in their answer sheets. When these roll nos. were corrected with the help of original records, eight candidates were found to be successful. Their results were also published alongwith above 126 candidates. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commission could not have done more to rectify the defects which had inadvertently and for bonafide reason crept into the selection process. We are equally convinced that no unfairness, malafide action, abuse of power, dishonesty, or spirit of favour or disfavour is at all involved in this case. The defects are entirely attributable to the question setters, or the Printers, and the Commission seems to have removed the same in the best possible manner. It is not a case of wide-spread defects, but of limited defects, and have almost entirely been redressed by the Commission in three stages. The candidates are themselves to be blamed if they have failed to cross the cut-off marks. The fourth stage is being taken over by the Court.

29. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Union of India vs. Chakradhar (supra) is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That was a case where the mischief in conducting the selection was so widespread and all-pervasive affecting the results, that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection. One of us

- 35 -

(S.K.Katriar,J.) had the occasion to apply the same in the judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha vs. State of Bihar [2009(1) PLJR

744). Paragraph 47 of the judgment of this Court is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :-

"47. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002)3 SCC 146 [2002(2) PLJR (SC) 263] (Union of India vs. O Chakradhar), equally covers the present case. The Supreme Court observed that the mischief in conducting the selection process was so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the results that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection, the whole selection could be cancelled without issuing individual show-cause notice to each person selected. It has been observed as follows :-

8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.

9. The copy of the report of CBI has been made available to the Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the same was served upon learned counsel for the respondent earlier. To find out the position in the present case, we may have to scrutinize the report of CBI.

10. ...... According to the report, answer-sheet packets were stealthily opened and answers were filled up in the blank spaces left by the examinees. This happened during the period the bags of the answer-sheets were in the

- 36 -

custody of the Chairman. So far as the interview is concerned, it is reported that the two Boards constituted for the interview did not have technical personnel as its member as per requirement. Each member was required to award marks to the candidate in the individual assessment sheets provided to them, and average was to be worked out. The columns for interview marks was later on filled up as per wishes of the Chairman and Member-Secretary of the Board and signatures of the non-official members were obtained on the summary sheet later on.

11. It is mentioned in the report that huge amount of money was taken for selecting the candidates but none is coming forward to indicate as to who and how much one paid for it for fear of being in trouble. It is further that non- official Chairman of the Board made payment of printing of the examination paper etc. not to any firm but to one Gaja Raja Yadav. It may also be mentioned that according to the report a large number of applications were missing and postal orders of the missing applications were encashed and misappropriated and even before the closing date of receiving the applications, it started sending applications to the computer firm for their scrutiny. CBI has named five persons as accused in the report, namely, the Chairman of the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, who is a non- official, the Member-Secretary of the Board, an officer of the Railways, one Shri Hanumanth Bhaiya, a Senior Clerk in the Railway Recruitment Board, and Gaja Raja Yadav, the private person to whom payment had been made for printing of the question paper etc.

12. As per the report of CBI the whole selection smacks of mala fides and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer- sheets while in the custody of the Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing the final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right

- 37 -

from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice or misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large-scale, widespread and all-pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishan Yadav applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed."

30. The judgment in Sunil Kumar Sinha (supra) related to a selection process conducted by the Commission where, in the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the entire selection was completely over-taken by widespread irregularities and, therefore, the only recourse left was to cancel the entire selection process as a whole. That was a case where the answers had to be recorded in H.B. pencil, were later on erased or altered with ulterior motives and monetary gains. As many as 29 persons including the Chairman, two members, a former Chairperson, and other functionaries of the Commission, were arrested, and are now facing

- 38 -

prosecution in the court of the learned Vigilance Court, Patna. The case in hand presents a fundamentally different picture. We, therefore, do not feel the necessity of cancelling the whole of the selection process.

31. Another consideration which weighs in our minds is that, for historical reasons, the vacancies have remained unfilled for a long time, as a result of which the State Government is finding it extremely difficult to carry on its duties and functions. The present selection process is for recruitment to 12 services, and takes care of recruitment for five batches, i.e. from 48th to 52nd batch. The selection process of the 53rd to 55th batch is already due and shall take place in future. The State Government has placed on record its counter affidavit wherein it is stated that, due to paucity of officers, two posts at the block level, namely, Block Development Officer and Circle Officer, are being manned by one person. It is further stated that, as a result of acute shortage of officers, the entire Government is suffering which is adversely affecting the development of the State. In such a situation, we are in no position to sacrifice the larger interest of the State for the objections of a few.

32. We also take judicial notice of the situation in the Bihar Judiciary. For similar reasons, recruitment to the entry level, namely, Civil Judge (Junior Division), could not take place for a number of

- 39 -

years. The Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules 1955 similarly provided for selection process for appointment to Civil Judge (Junior Division) once every year after taking into account the anticipated vacancies in the year following. However, examination could not be held each year and 25th Competitive Examination for appointment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was held in the year 1999, and appointments were made in the year 2001, against 152 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division). Thereafter examination for the 26th Competitive Examination for appointment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was held in the year 2006. Ultimately 318 Civil Judges (Junior Division) were appointed in September 2007, and have after completion of training started functioning as Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class in December 2008. In view of acute paucity of judicial officers at all levels, disposal of cases very badly suffered. It is only in 2009, vacant posts of Sub Judges, Additional District Judges, Additional District Judges (Fast-Track Courts) could be filled up. The situation will improve after they are vested with the powers of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The next competitive examination has already been announced and more than 217 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) will be filled up.

33. This takes us on to the last issue. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is open to us to close the matter. However, there is no

- 40 -

doubt that there were some defects in the selection process which have been taken care of by the Commission by constituting two Committees, and also by its administrative decisions, as a result of which the grievances have been redressed. It is a possible situation that a few may still survive. We accordingly direct, as alternatively submitted by the learned Advocate General, and taking a very liberal view of the matter, that there shall be a fresh PT for the 94 candidates who had, after the PT and before the publication of results, submitted their representations before the Commission for fresh test on the ground that they were supplied with defective Question Booklets which were misbound. Only six from amongst them are writ petitioners. We disagree with the learned Advocate General that the relief may be confined to the six writ petitioners, and would prefer to extend the relief all the 94 complainants which includes the six writ petitioners. This is not in the nature of public interest litigation, the grievances of individual candidates have been considered by the Commission and now being considered by this Court. We find no justification in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners to give relief to persons who neither approached the Commission nor this Court. It is a possible situation that persons other than those 94 complainants which include the writ petitioners, may not be left with any genuine grievance. The first round as well as the second round of

- 41 -

the selection process for such candidates shall be as nearly, and as practicable, as possible, close to the format which has already taken place, i.e., in identical format. The third phase of the selection process shall be common to all. This shall not come in the way of the second phase of the selection process scheduled to commence on 25.5.2009.

34. In the result, we modify the order of the learned single Judge. We do not feel the necessity of cancelling the entire selection process of the first phase. The Commission shall hold fresh selection process for the 94 candidates indicated hereinabove. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.




                                             ( S K Katriar )




Kishore K. Mandal, J.    I agree.



                                      ( Kishore K. Mandal )



 Patna High Court
 The 19th of May 2009
 AFR/ mrl

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court