Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Pinku Kumar Singh & Ors on 13 July, 2011
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Ravi Ranjan
Letters Patent Appeal No.634 of 2011
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar, Patna ..Appellants
Versus
1. Pinku Kumar Singh S/o Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, Vill. + PO Sheopur, PS Bikramganj,
District Rohtas, Pin- 802204, Roll no. 66060302
2. Bishwajeet Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Vill. + PO- Kanbehri, PS Muffasil, Distt.-
Aurangabad (Bihar) Roll No. 64030080
3. Ashutosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Singh Vill.+ PO- Ramdiri ( Lawarkchak), PS
Matihani, Distt- Begusarai, Roll no. 95010899
4. Brijmohan Singh, S/o Sheodayal Singh, Vill- Sahpur, PO Sahpur, PS Sahpur, Distt- Patna
Roll No. 60640259
5. Nikesh Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Prasad Vill.+ PO- Kapasiya, PS Paraiya, Distt- Gaya,
Roll No. 62050049
6. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishna Murari Singh Vill- Garfuchak, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Airport,
Distt- Patna Roll no. 60560337
7. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Singh Vill- Bhakhra, PO Deshpur (Amba) PS
Amba Distt- Aurangabad Roll No. 64540761
8. Shitanshu Vyas S/o Shri Anirudh Jha Vill.+ PO- Bhatihani, PS Bhatihani, Distt- Begusarai
Roll No. 95050118
9. Arun Kumar Pandey S/o Lal Mani Pandey Vill- Bahdura PO Dadar PS Mohania Distt-
Bhabua (Kaimur) Roll no. 69190718
10. Rajesh Ranjan S/o Sajadhar Prasad Yadav Vill- Bahurwa PO Kanjari PS Salkhuwa Distt-
Saharsa, Roll No. 60730238
11. Bikesh Kumar S/o Jhakash Sah Vill- Hussainchak, PO Mahkhar PS Simri Bakhtiyarpur,
Distt- Saharsa Roll No. 81060490
12. Bablu Yadav S/o Dinesh Kr. Singh Vill.+ PO+ PS Sisrit Tola, PS Nokha, Distt Rohtas
Roll No.68050906 .........Respondents
With
LPA No.635 of 2011
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar Patna
..........Appellants
Versus
Ram Pravesh Yadav, S/o Mahendra Rai, R/O Vill- Behahiya, PO Darpa, Distt- East
Champaran, Roll No. 73180040 ...........Respondent
With
LPA No.638 of 2011
2
1. The State Of Bihar through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
............Appellants
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Shri Hare Krishna Singh, Resident Of Village Naryar, P.O.
Naryar, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa
2. Arunam Kumar, S/O Chhatu Singh, Resident of Village + Post- Enai, District- Chapra
(Bihar), Roll No.75100528
3. Alok Kumar, S/O Surendra Mishra, Resident Of Village + Post + P.S. Bangaon West
Tola, District- Saharsa, Roll No.81080341
4. Pranav Kumar Singh, S/O Shishupal Singh, Resident Of Village- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar,
District- Munger (Bihar), Roll No.90010603
5. Suren Kumar Singh, S/O Ramanand Singh, Resident Of Village Diyari, Post Sonali, P.S.
Kadwa, District- Katihar, Roll No.86060074
6. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Surendra Singh, Resident Of Village Jagdishpur, P.O.
Nawada, District- Buxar, Roll No.67090283
7. Payprakash Kumar S/O Sri Uma Shankar Prasad, Resident Of Vill.- Lakhiboy, P.O.
Masauri, District- Patna, Roll No.60490219
8. Abhay Kumar, S/O Suresh Parasad Singh, Resident Of Vill.- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar, District-
Munger, Roll No.90050529
9. Saurave Kumar, S/O Prakash Sharma, Resident Of Vill- Kheraihiya, Babatola, P.O.+P.S.
Akbar Nagar, District- Bhagalpur
10. Gautam Kumar Pandey, S/O Anil Kumar Pandey, R/O Vill+P.O.+P.S. Rahui, Distt-
Nalanda, Roll No.61140140
11. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, S/O Banshidhar Mishra, R/O Vill+P.O. Sonbarsa, District
Bhojpur (Bihar), Roll No.60350633
12. Ravi Kumar, S/O Parsuram Sinha, R/O Vill- Guljarbagh, Karpi, P.O. Karpi, District-
Arwal, Roll No.62210770
13. Amitabh, S/O Harnath Kunwar, R/O Vill- Chainpur Chamariya, P.O. Nawada, P.S.
Masrakh, District- Chhapra (Saran), R.No.75310218
14. Rajnish Kr.Tiwari, S/O Lal Babu Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O. Kumana, District- Chapra, Roll
No.75130209
15. Bimlesh Kuamr, S/O Bidyanand Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Balha Bazar, P.S. Mansi,
Distt.- Khagaria, Roll No.95030462
16. Raju Kr.Singh, S/O Ramashankar Singh, R/O Vill- Mathurapur, P.S. Koilwar, Distt.-
Bhojpur(Ara) Roll No.66350187
17. Anil Kumar Jha, S/O Chandra Kant Jha, R/O Vill+P.O. Madhesra, Distt.- Sitamarhi, Roll
No.72060631
18. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Rambhawan Singh, R/O Vill- Bank Mens, P.O.+P.S. Hajipur,
Distt.- Vaishali, Roll No.71160218
19. Avinash Priyadarshi, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill- Parsurai, P.O. Panhar, P.S.
Khudaganj, Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61030596
20. Manish Kuamr, S/O Mundrika Singh, R/O Vill-Biraini, P.O. Motha, P.S. Karakat, Distt-
Rohtas, Roll No.68090400
21. Tarun Kr.Yadav, S/O Vishwanath Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Suggapatti, Phulparas, Distt-
Madhubani, Roll No.79010572
22. Narottam Kumar, S/O Dilip Singh, R/O Vill.-Kishunpur, P.O. Kachanama, Distt-
Jehanabad, Roll No.62120281
3
23. Santosh Kumar, S/O Prasan Das, R/O Vill- Belahi, Post- Lohar, P.S. Pundol, Distt-
Madhubani, Roll No.79030116
24. Alok Kr.Singh, S/O Virendra Pd.Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Babura, Distt.-Bhojpur(Ara),
Roll No.66010965
25. Sujit Kr.Singh, S/O Vikrama Singh, R/O Vill+P.O. Kundesar, Distt- Bhojpur, Roll
No.71120066
26. Sambhu Singh, S/O Rameshwar Singh, Vill- Bajruhan, P.O.- Udwant Nagar, Distt-
Bhojpur(Ara) Roll No.66200231
27. Rajeev Kr.Singh, S/O Balram Singh, R/O Vill-Samhota, P.O. Kopasamhota (South Tola),
Distt.- Chapra, Roll No.75440024
28. Mirtunjay Kumar Singh, S/O Pawan Kr.Singh, R/O Vill- B.M.P., P.O.- R.T.S., P.S.
Singhoul, Distt.- Begusarai, R.No.95020680
29. Mukesh Kumar, S/O Indal Ram, R/O Vill.- Budhgharya, P.O. Paley, P.S. Walirgang,
Distt.-Gaya, Roll No.62150327
30. Vinay Kumar, S/O Mahendra Ram, R/O Vill- Budhgharya, P.O. Paley, P.S. Wazirganj,
Distt.- Gaya, Roll No.62320082
31. Adarsh Kumar, S/O Ramjanam Chaubey, R/O At Bishnopura, P.O. Imadpur, Distt.-
Bhojpur, Roll No.66260147
32. Vikash Kumar, S/O Janardan Prasad, R/O Vill+P.O.Nardiganj Road, Gadhpar, P.S.
Nawada, Distt.- Nawada, R.No.65120102
33. Gauri Shankar Kumar, S/O Saryug Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Sahugarh Karu, P.S.+ Distt.-
Madhepura, Roll No.82010259
34. Sunil Kr.Ja, S/O Vijay Prakash Jha, R/O Vill+P.O. Kataresh, Distt.- Katihar, Roll
No.89010471
35. Anand Sagar, S/O Sighnath Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Karup, Distt.- Bhojpur, Roll
No.68010667
36. Vikram Kumar, S/O Sri Mohan Pd. Yadav, R/O Vill- Kanhainagar, P.S. Nawada, Distt.-
Nawada, Roll No.65080240
37. Durgesh Kr.Singh, S/O Rajeshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Dudhi West, P.O.+P.S. , Distt.-
Saran, Roll No.75340064
38. Vishwajeet Kr., S/O Bhushan Chaudhari, R/O B.M.P.-5, D.I.G. Office, P.O.-
B.V.College, P.S. Airport, Distt.- Patna, Roll No.60700026
39. Nawin Kumar, S/O Satendra Singh, R/O Vill.- Gangti, P.O.+P.S.- Kaludganj, Distt.-
Nalanda, Roll No.61220018
40. Zahid Alam, S/O Jahangir Alam, R/O Ehsania Hotel Nagni Chowk Ganj No.2, Ward
No.19 Bettiah, Distt.- West Champaran, Roll No.74050233
41. Anish Kr.Singh, S/O Paras Singh, R/O Vill.+Post Ramper Souna, Distt.- West
Champaran, Roll No.74010195
42. Akash, S/O Rambilash Sharma, R/O Vill- Vankosh & Company, P.S.- Patliputra Colony,
Distt.- Patna, Roll No.60310563
43. Washim Akram, S/O Zahiruddin Khan, R/O Vill- Baranpura, P.O.+P.S. Khairah, Distt-
Chapra, Roll No.75230210
44. Rahul Kumaqr, S/O Shambhu Singh, R/O Vill- Kolhua, Post- Maijhara, Distt- Nalanda,
Roll No.61030608
45. Alok Kumar, S/O Amod Pathak, R/O Vill+Post- Bishnupur, Deorhi Via Barhara Kothi,
Distt.- Porniya, Roll No.84010593
46. Raj Kumar, S/O Manohar Pd.Yadav, R/O At+P.O.- Katra, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.89030649
47. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Harishankar Sahu, R/O Vill- Kaurihar, P.O. Kharaujha, Chakiya,
Chandoli, Distt.- U.P., Roll No.78030446
4
48. Bednarayan Yadav, S/O Ramesh Yadav, R/O Vill+Post Baskatti, Bai-Bahera, Distt.-
Darbhanga, Roll No.78110369
49. Pradeep Yadav, C/O Ramgulam Mahto, R/O Vill- Dilawarpur, P.O.- Milkichak,
Darbhanga, Roll No.78040334
50. Ajit Kumar, S/O Kamleshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Vishnupuri Anisabad, Patna(2), Roll
No.60020244
51. Ajay Tiwari, C/O Prabhusaran Tiwari, R/O Vill+Post- Belshar, P.S. Barouli Via Jamo
Bazar, Distt.- Gopalganj, Roll No.77040703
52. Chandrashekhar Kr., S/O Arun Kumar, R/O Vill.- Naya Tola Khirodarpur, Post- Fatuha,
P.S. Khushrupur, District- Patna (Bihar), Roll No.60180172
53. Bijay Kumar, S/O Badan Singh, R/O Vill.- Newtolia, P.O. Marar, P.S. Morkahi, Distt.-
Khagaria, Roll No.94020181
54. Raghvendra Kr.Tiwari, S/O Shailendra Tiwari, R/O Vill-Nijuara, Post- Moura, P.S.
Khaira, Via Gidhaur, Distt.- Jamui, Roll No.93070041
55. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Moleshwari Pd.Singh, R/O Vill- Labhet, Post- Noomer, Distt.-
Jamui, Roll No.93010316
56. Sushil Kumar Kashyap, S/O Dhaniram Singh, R/O Vill.- Chouthi, Post- Dumraith, P.S.-
Bhabhua, Distt.- Kaimur, R.No.69040800
57. Shankar Kumar, S/O Ram Chandra Bhagat, R/O Vill- P.O. Kab, P.S.- Ranitalab, Distt.-
Patna, Roll No.60600165
58. Ranjeet Kumar, S/O Lt.Chamaru Pd.Singh, R/O At, P.O.- Sondiha, P.S. Pasraha, Distt.-
Khagaria, R. No.94050269
59. Gyan Shankar Tiwari, S/O Nanho Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O. Dharauli, Distt.- Chandauli
(U.P.), Roll No.80050298
60. Dhanjay Kr.Sharma, S/O Harishankar Thakur, R/O Vill + Post- Gahmar, Patti Ghopal
R.N.Gazipur (U.P.), Roll No.75020397
61. Deepak Kumar Singh, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill.- Chainpurwan, P.O. Navaon,
P.S. Awtarnagar, Distt.- Saran, R.No.75330113
62. Pankaj Kumar, S/O Kamakhya Narayan Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Goriapur, Via Dighwara,
Distt- Saran, Roll No.75310112
63. Dinesh Kumar, S/O Suresh Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill- Araria, P.O. Balaha, Distt- Khagaria,
Roll No.94010495
64. Rajaram Kumar, S/O Yougal Singh, R/O Vil- Madhurapur, P.O. Madhurapur, Purbi,
Tola, Distt- Begusarai, Roll No.95060028
65. Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Ram Swarup Singh, R/O At+P.O.- Madhurapur, Purabarai Tola,
Distt- Begusarai, Roll No.95050113
66. Dhurendhar Kr. Yadav, S/O Ramreet Yadav, R/O Vill- Dewariya, P.O. Hasvalahi, Distt-
Chapra, Roll No.75040610 5
67. Kashinath Singh, S/O Dhupnarayan Singh, R/O Vill- Mandipur, P.O.- Natwar Semariya,
Distt- Chapra, Roll No.75040505
68. Mukesh Yadav, S/O Dudha Nath Yadav, R/O Vill- Dawariya, Via Gothani, Post-
Tandwa, Distt- Siwan, Roll No.76160499
69. Murari Kumar, S/O Chandramouli Singh, R/O At+P.O. Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll
No.65050448
70. Ranjan Kumar, S/O Late Virendra Singh, R/O At+P.O.- Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll
No.65080299
71. Jay Shankar Singh, S/O Surya Singh, R/O Vill- Fakuli, P.S.- Awatarnagar, Distt- Saran,
Roll No.75040210
72. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Son Of Devendra Prasad Singh, R/O Vill- Fatehpur, P.O. & Distt-
Nalanda, Roll No.61170202
5
73. Manoj Kumar, S/O Ramesh Prasad, R/O Vill- Bajruhan, P.O. Vedwani Nagar, Distt-
Bhojpur (Ara) Roll No.66200231
74. Ravindra Kr.Singh, S/O Satyanarayan Singh, R/O Vill- Damodarpur, P.O. Amba, P.S.
Shahkund, Distt- Bhagalpur, Roll No.87020287
75. Pravin Kr.Yadav, S/O Basudev Prasad, R/O Vill- Shahpur, P.O. Panchrukhi, P.S.
Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur, Roll No.87300079
76. Abhimanyu Kr.Singh, S/O Manoj Pd.Singh, R/O Vill- Shahapur Barant, Post- Jalalpur,
P.S. Patori, Distt- Samastipur, Roll No.80030274
77. Abhishek Singh, S/O Triloki Nath Singh, R/O C/O Prabhunath Mishra, Arare Moad,
Wsest In The Front Of Patel Residence, Gopalganj, Roll No.77050321
78. Sanjeev Kumar, S/O Chandrama Singh, R/O Vill- Tandawa, P.O. Dewa, P.S. Kadirganj,
District- Patna, Roll No.60420139
79. Kumar Rohan, S/O Sri Uday Shankar Singh, R/O Vill- Anchacha, P.S. Daudbagar, Distt-
Aurangabad, Roll No.64050589
80. Piyoosh Kumar, S/O Shishir Kumar Pandey, Residence Of Vill- Maghra, P.O. Maghra,
P.S. Deepnagar, Distt- Nalanda (Bihar), Roll No.61050452
81. Nand Kishore Singh, S/O Chaudhary Singh, R/O Vill- Khalaspur (Gangapur) P.S.
Sadokhar, P.S. Chanari, Distt- Rohtas, Roll No.69010113
82. Kishor Kunal, S/O Basudeo Singh, R/O Vill- Jagdishpur Mathiya, P.O Shahar Telpa, P.S.
Karpi, Distt- Arwal, Roll No.62070052
83. Ravi Shankar Sharma, S/O Saryug Singh, R/O Vill+ Post - Birhidilt, Distt- Nalanda, Roll
No.61180312
84. Akhilesh Kumar Pathak, S/O Sri Binodanand Pathak, R/O Vill+P.O. Marwa, P.S. Bihpur,
Distt- Bhagalpur, R.No.87280247
85. Chandan Kumar, S/O Birendra Upadhyay, Vill- Sikariya, P.O.- Muksudpur, P.S. Tekari,
Gaya (Bihar), Roll No.62140408
86. Saurav Kumar, S/O Ramendra Kumar Singh, Vill- Matiyara, P.O. Kayamnagar, P.S.
Koilwar, Bhojpur, Roll No.68180123 .......Respondents
-----------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Advocate General
Mr. J.P. Karn A.A.G. IX
Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, A.C. to AAG IX
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN O RDER Shiva Kirti Singh, J. The State of Bihar as well as the Central 6 Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar and some of their officials have preferred these three appeals under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of this court to challenge the judgement and order of the writ court dated 19th February, 2011 whereby CWJC Nos. 14170 of 2010, 503 of 2011 and 512 of 2011 have been disposed of along with CWJC No. 14742 of 2010 and CWJC No. 504 of 2011.
2. Through the judgement and order under appeal, the writ court has interfered with the final result of selected candidates to a limited extent and has directed the respondents to redraw the final result separately on the basis of two Physical Evaluation Tests (PET) held at two stages. The writ court noticed that there was substantial compliance with all the statutory provisions and instructions in holding the written examination and calling the qualified candidates for PET- 1, therefore, the result of all the successful candidates on the basis of PET-1 must be published and on that basis recommendations should be made for appointment against remaining available vacancies of 7 different categories out of 5058 vacancies meant for Non Home Guard category of candidates. The writ court has further directed that for the 5052 vacancies meant for Home Guard category of candidates which have remained available after appointment of only 131 candidates of Home Guard category on the basis of PET- 1, should be filled up from the candidates of respective categories available after PET-2, for which the left over candidates of PET-1 as well as the left over vacancies of PET-1 shall also be taken into account for making appoint strictly as per respective category of the candidates and their ranking in the merit list of written test. The separate results have been directed to be drawn and finally published within one month from the date of the judgement and order.
3. The case of the appellants is that the writ court should have held that lowering down of qualifying marks for the written test was of no consequence because after the result of written test was published on 18-6-2010 by applying cut off marks as per 1991 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department's 8 Circular, it was found that only 19616 candidates out of 3.65 lacs applicants have passed whereas out of 10,110 vacancies which were subject matter of advertisement No. 2 of 2009, 5052 were meant for the Home Guard category of candidates but only 389 applicants from this category passed the written test and only 131 of them qualified for the PET-1. According to learned counsel for the appellants, only 5676 candidates including 131 from the Home Guard category had cleared PET-1 and this was not sufficient to fill up the advertised vacancies of 10,110 and, therefore, fresh guidelines were issued by the State Government on 4-8-2010 to declare that provisions in the Bihar Police Act, 2007 for calling candidates for the Physical Evaluation Test, after holding of the written examination, in the ratio of 1:5 was mandatory and hence, the executive circulars of Personnel Department laying down cut off marks for various categories are not required to be followed in the matter of recruitment to the post of Constables. The guidelines clarified that the minimum eligibility marks were, therefore, relaxed and in that light candidates in 9 each category (reserved category) be called in the ratio of 1:5. The guidelines directed for revising the result of the written examination simply on the basis of 1:5 ratio of the vacancies vis-à-vis the candidates required to be called for interview and to publish the result accordingly on the basis of PET-1 and to hold PET-2 so as to publish further final result within 30 days of the result published on the basis of PET-1. The guidelines, thus, directed for final results in two stages but with a stipulation that ultimately one merit list will be prepared of all the successful candidates for fixing their inter se seniority though they may have succeeded in two different stages. The guidelines further provided that 50% of the vacancies should be filled up with candidates belonging to the category of Home Guards but if such posts remained vacant due to non availability of suitable candidates then the remaining vacancies of Home Guard category should be made available to open category. It was highlighted in the guidelines that for filling up the vacancies of Home Guard category candidates from each reserved category should also be 10 called for in the proportion of 1: 5 for the Physical Evaluation Test.
4. The cause of action for filing the writ petitions arose mainly because the Selection Board while publishing the result based on PET-1 on 18-8-2010 went into issues relating to reservation and published the results of only 2228 candidates and results of 3317 candidates were put on hold. Out of 2228 candidates 2095 belonged to general category, 131 to Home Guard category and 2 to Gorkha category. The last candidate selected for appointment had obtained 120 marks in the written test. The grievance raised on behalf of the writ petitioners was that the result of 3317 candidates was wrongly put on hold only to appease the Home Guard candidates and for diluting the standard set for entering into category of general candidates; the concept of cut off marks was wrongly given a go by after the results on the basis of written test had already been published and Physical Evaluation Test was also over. According to writ petitioners the effect of subsequent relaxation is two fold, firstly persons having secured less than zero marks 11 ( on account of negative marking) have been selected for final appointment in preference to those who had obtained much higher roughly 120 marks in the written test and secondly, such candidates who had secured absurdly low marks (even less than zero) also became eligible for being included in the general category of Home Guard candidates and, therefore, candidates of general category having much higher marks have been deprived from being considered for appointment against vacancies of general category candidates which had to revert to the open category candidates as per declared norms and government guidelines.
5. Learned writ court has considered all the relevant materials in coming to a conclusion that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of calling for candidates for Physical Evaluation Test in the ratio of 1:5 and such ratio could be maintained, as far as possible, only after the result of the written examination on the basis of minimum qualifying marks or cut off marks as per prevailing policy decision. Hence, the writ court was of the view that the subsequent relaxation of 12 marks may be condoned but such selection on the basis of PET-2 cannot be a selection on the basis of marks and, therefore, the successful candidates of PET-1 whose results were withheld had to be treated as successful candidates and the candidates selected after ignoring cut off marks on the basis of PET-2 could not be treated as candidates selected on the basis of merit so as to entitle them to be counted as general category candidates. Such candidates, according to writ court, cannot be treated as general candidates because they have been made to qualify without merits.
6. The facts are not in much dispute and the basic issues are whether State Government could relax minimum eligibility marks by holding that it was mandatory to call candidates for Physical Evaluation Test in the ratio of 1:5 regardless of their performance in the written examination. The view of the writ court appears to be correct that the newly enacted selection process by holding written examination will be rendered nugatory and meaningless if there will be no cut off marks. There can be no dispute that doing away with cut 13 off marks completely will not only be counter productive to the purpose of efficient public recruitments on the basis of merit but shall also make inroad into well understood concept of reservation which is permitted generally up to 50% of the available vacancies in favour of reserved category of candidates and the remaining vacancies, loosely described as general category vacancies, are to be filled up strictly on the basis of merit. If a candidate of reserved category finds a place in the category of general candidates on account of his merit, he is treated as general candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. If merit is to be ignored totally so as to appoint candidates who have obtained even negative marks, that is, zero or less, it shall have serious adverse impact on the entire concept of leaving 50% vacancies as general and open to be filled up on the basis of merit alone. This shall be in contradiction and derogation of well established concept of permitting reservation generally up to 50% of the vacancies only. It will also adversely affect the necessity of balancing merit and competence in public services with required 14 concession for filling up only the reserved category of posts by lowering down the minimum eligibility marks for such categories alone to a reasonable extent.
7. It may be relevant to notice some relevant judgements on the issue of fixing of cut off marks. In the case of State of Punjab V. Manjit Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 559, while considering validity of short listing of scheduled caste candidates by a written scrutiny test, the Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 held that the best candidates in different categories should be permitted to come in the zone of consideration depending upon the number of vacancies but the State Government may decide as a matter of policy the measures, if necessary, to be provided regarding reservations vis-à-vis maintenance of efficiency in services. In the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors (2006) 10 SCC 261, the issue was whether eligibility conditions in relation to a recruitment process could be relaxed by subsequent issuance of administrative instructions. The Court held it could not be done and reduction of cut off marks was held to be arbitrary. 15
8. The requirement of calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5 for Physical Evaluation Test must be held to be directory and this ratio should be adhered to, to the extent possible, depending upon the number of candidates who qualified in the written examination. If a contrary view is taken, then holding of written examination, though required by the statutory rules, may become meaningless and redundant in case the number of candidates is less than the number of vacancies in any particular class or category. Further, such requirement can not be followed strictly if the number of candidates in any category is less than five times the number of vacancies for such category. Hence, the view of the writ court is correct that such a requirement needs only substantial compliance.
9. It is also well established in law that once a selection process commences, it should be conducted and concluded as per rules and guidelines then prevailing and subsequent amendment in the rules or guidelines should normally govern subsequent recruitment process initiated 16 after amendment of the rules or guidelines. In the present case, the writ court on account of some consideration has chosen not to interfere with the decision of the appellants to follow the amended guidelines although they were issued after the publication of the result of the written examination and after the PET-1 was held. There is no appeal before us challenging this part of the judgement and order otherwise, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction we would have been required to consider whether to allow or not the operation of subsequent guidelines in respect of present recruitment process
10. In the facts of the case, in our view the prayer made in these appeals seeking to amalgamate the results of PET-1 and PET-2 and to implement reservation rules in respect of such combined result on the basis of no cut off marks, has no merit and hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order under appeal. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
17
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) I agree.
Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court The 13th July, 2011 NAFR/BKS