Patna High Court - Orders
Dhananjay Kumar & Ors vs The Bihar State Selection Com on 20 August, 2013
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3640 of 2013
======================================================
1. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra Son Of Sri Gouri Kant Mishra Resident Of
Village - Chainpur, (Durga Mandit) P.S. - Bangaon, District - Saharsa
(Bihar - 852212)
2. Sunil Kumar Ray Son Of Dharam Deo Ray R/O Village - Bhatauli, P.O.
- Chhatauna, District - Rohtas (Bihar) Pin - 802225
3. Prabhat Kumar Son Of Sri Bali Shankar Prasad R/O A/78, Jagat
Amrawati Apartment Off Officer'S Flat Bailey Road, Patna
4. Dilip Kumar Son Of Late Baliram Pandit R/O Village - Hinduni, P.O. -
Alampur Gonpura Vaya - Phulwari Sharif, Patna(Bihar) 801505
5. Anil Kumar Son Of Sudarshan Sharma C/O Dinesh Ray Lodge Old
Building Post Office Road - Punaichak, Patna - 800023
6. Ajay Kumar Son Of Nepal Prasad C/O Saryoo Prasad Singh, R/O At -
Mohanpur, Punaichak, Near West Of Devi Sthan, District - Patna , Pin -
800023
7. Pankaj Kumar Verma Son Of Ashol Kumar Verma R/O Village -
Sukhasan (Chakla) P.O. - Sukhasan (Chakla), P.S. - Madhepura, District
- Madhepura, Pin - 852113
8. Kanchan Kumar Son Of Balanand Saw R/O Village + Post - Amhara,
District - Patna , Pin - 801103
9. Manish Chandra Mani Son Of Late Chandra Mauli Shwari Prasad
Yadav C/O Lala Singh, Ujjaval Bhawan, 5B, At-Post Office Road,
Punaichak, Patna - 800023
10. Sudama Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Shivjee Singh R/O Village - Lori
Bandh, Post Office - Karup, District - Rohtas (Bihar) Pin - 802214
11. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Son Of Subhash Kumar Mishra C/O Lala
Singh, Ujjaval Bhawan, 5B, At-Post Office Road, Punaichak, Patna -
800023
12. Ravindra Kumar Sinha Son Of Bishwanath Prasad R/O Village + P.O. -
Raitar, District - Nalanda, Pin - 803109
13. Rupak Kumar Sinha Son Of Srikant Prasad Sinha R/O Road No. 7,
House No. 10 Indrapuri, P.O. - Resari Nagar, Patna
14. Om Prakash Son Of Uday Chandra Roy R/O Shiv Puri, P.S. - Shashtri
Nagar, District - Patna
15. Ananjay Kumar Son Of Munglal Prasad R/O Ranipur Kechak, P.O. -
Begampur, P.S. - Bypas, District - Patna
16. Munay Kumar Sinha Son Of Shambhoo Singh C/O Maremdra Bahadur
Lodge, Post Office Road, Punaichak, Patna - 800023
17. Shamnkar Pandit Son Of Nageshwar Prasad Pandit R/O Vill + Post -
Hauzpura, Via - Anirudh Belsar, District - Vaishali
18. Abid Hussain Son Of Md. Kasim R/O Village - Sarsaula, Post - Barwa,
P.S. - Lakhaura, District - East Champaran
19. Hira Lal Sahani Son Of Late Ramdhari Sahani R/O Village - Sarsaula,
Post - Barwa, P.S. - Lakhaura, District - East Champaran
20. Devendra Ray Son Of Babu Saheb Ray At + P.O. - Bithouli, District -
Darbhanga, Pin - 847201
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Selection Commission Through Its Secretary,
Veterinary College, Patna - 800014
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 2
2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College,
Patna - 800014
3. Sri J.R.K. Rao Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner The Chairman,
Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna - 800014
4. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College,
Patna - 800014
5. Sri Parsuram Mishra Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner The
Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna
- 800014
6. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar,
Patna
7. The Director General-Cum-Inspector Of Police, Government Of Bihar,
Patna
8. The Insepector General Economic Offence, Government Of Bihar, Patna
9. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, R/o Village Saranti, P.S.
Rampur Chauram, Dist. Arwal.
10. Bipul Kumar, S/o Kameshwar Singh, village Jalpura, P.S. Masourha,
P.S. Paliganj, Dist. Patna.
11. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Raj Mohan Singh, Village Ashram Road-Araria,
P.S. Araria, Dist. Araria.
12. Manoj Paswan, S/o Ram Shankar Paswan of Village Horilapur, P.S.
Sonhan, Dist. Kaimur, P.S. Sonhan, Dist. Kaimur.
13. Vibhakar Kumar, S/o Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha of Village Sachai,
P.S. Kurtha, Dist. Arwal at present residing of Sachai Kothi-Salimpur
Ahara, P.S. Kadamkuan, Dist. Patna.
14. Kumar Shalendra Bharati, S/o Sita Ram Singh of Village Bargi Bigha,
P.S. Karai Parshurai, Dist. Nalanda.
15. Kul Bhushan Kumar, S/o Sri Ambika Prasad of Village Bargi Bigha,
P.S. Karai-Parshurai, Dist. Nalanda.
16. Ram Narayan Prasad, S/o Ayodhya Paswan of village Panch Pokhari,
P.S. Kudra, Dist. Kiamur.
17. Nishant Kumar, S/o Parshuram Singh of village Biro Bigha, P.S.
Sakurabad, Dist. Jehanabad.
18. Vineet Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Dhayan Sharma of Village Kanap, P.S.
Daud Nagar, Dist. Aurangabad.
19. Anjan Dutta, S/o Shri Arun Chandra Dutta, R/o Road No.5, Adarsh
Colony, Digha, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Dist. Patna.
20. Amit Kumar, S/o Sheo Sharan Pandit, R/o Mohalla Gulabi Ghat,
Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, Dist. Patna.
21. Deergh Raj, S/o Raghubansh Prasad, R/o Mohalla Pokharapar Digha,
P.S. Shastri Nagar, Dist. Patna.
22. Ravi Shankar, S/o Ram Lakhan Prasad, R/o Mohalla A/127, A.G.
Colony, Ashiyana, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Dist. Patna.
23. Rajesh Chandra Choube, S/o Surendra Choube, R/o Mohalla A/322,
A.G. Colony, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, Patna.
24. Sandip Kumar, S/o I.C. Prasad, R/o Mohalla Vikash Colony, Main Road
A.G. Colony, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna.
25. Ranvijay Kumar, S/o Hare Ram Singh, R/o Village Zirwa Kala, P.O.
Pastpar, P.S. Patarghat, Dist. Saharsa, Bihar.
26. Nandlal Ram, S/o Balkeshwar Ram, village Gosaindih, P.S. Tandwa,
Dist. Aurangabad.
27. Sunil Ram, S/o Harihar Ram, Village Gosaindih, P.S. Tandwa, Dist.
Aurangabad.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 3
28. Santosh Kumar, S/o Narayan Singh, Village+P.O. Samahuta, P.S.
Karakat, Dist. Rohtas.
29. Murari Kumar Singh, S/o Hare Ram Singh Village + P.O. Bilandpur,
P.S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali.
30. Rajnish Ray Ranjan, S/o Sri Basant Sharma, Janta Akhra Sahpur, near at
Sheu Mandi, P.S. Aurangabad, P.O. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3740 of 2013
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar S/O Ganesh Prasad R/O Villge- Makunahiya, Post Office-
Raghapura Via Sursand, District- Sitamarhi
2. Dinesh Chandra Srivastava S/O Shri Hari Narayan Srivastava R/O
House No.- 118, Gandhi Path, Nehru Nagar, Patliputra, District- Patna
3. Niranjan Kumar Vidyarthi S/O Shri Ram Sagar Prasad R/O Village-
Gopikita, Post Office- Pandarak, District- Patna
4. Girish Chandra Sah S/O Kadam Lal Sah R/O Village & Post Office-
Gaiyari Via Raria, District- Araria
5. Ram Kishore Prasad S/O Shri Ram Briksh Prasad R/O Village-
Basriawan, Post Office- Salehpur, District- Nalanda
6. Pappu Kumar S/O Shyamnandan Singh R/O Village- Chilbillg, Post
Office- Nisrapur, Police Station-Beur Via Punpur, District- Patna
7. Sandeep Kumar C/O Chandan Saloon Jagat Narayan Road, Kadm Kuan,
District- Patna
8. Raj Narayan Singh S/O Chandra Shekhar Singh R/O Rampur Alauli,
Post Office & Police Station- Alauli, District-Khagaria
9. Rakesh Kumar S/O Raj Kishor Sah C/O A.N. Verma, M-2/5, 10e,
Rajendra Nagar, District- Patna
10. Vishwajit Sanyal S/O Late Purnendu Kumar Sanyal R/O Indrapuri
House No. 39, Road No. 6, Near Shiv Mandir, District- Patna
11. Vijay Kumar S/O Shri Dashrath Prasad R/O Dighikala West, Hajipur
(Chandrakala Homeo Clinic), District-Vaishali
12. Shashikant Kumar S/O Vimal Roy R/O Village- Mahamadpur, Post
Office-Mamsai Via Jandaha, District- Vaishali
13. Raushan Kumar S/O Suresh Kumar Ram Pratap Ram R/O Sweets Shop,
Main Road, Uttar Bazar, Warisaliganj, District- Nawada
14. Surjit Kumar S/O Bishu Deo Tiwari R/O Village-Khabra, Tiwari Tola,
Post Office - Khabra, Police Station- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur
15. Rajesh Kishan C/O Anand Mohan Yadav Dr. Narayan Prasad Lane,
Near Shiv Mandir, Sultanganj, Mahendru, District- Patna
16. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar C/O Pravin Kumar Ambasta House, Uttar Bazar,
Devi Asthan, Post Office- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada
17. Subodh Kumar S/O Ramswaroop Prasad R/O Amawan, Post Office-
Banshgopal, District-Nawada
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar,
Patna
3. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna Through Its Secretary
4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 4
5. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4104 of 2013
======================================================
1. Santosh Kumar S/O Late Rajeshwar Lal R/O Vill&P.O.Hansadih,
P.S.Masaurhi, Distt-Patna
2. Ratnash Prabhakar S/O Late Shyam Bihari Sinha R/O Vill-Khapura,
P.O.&P.S.Paliganj, Distt-Patna
3. Rahul Kumar S/O Chandrakant Kumar Verma R/O Vill&P.O.Anti,
Distt-Gaya
4. Manoj Kumar Sinha S/O Mithilesh Kumar Sinha R/O
Vill&P.O.Masaurhi, P.S.Masaurhi, Distt-Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan,
Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Governmentof Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetenary College
Campus, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4265 of 2013
======================================================
1. Niraj Kumar Kantha S/O Sri Narendra Kanth Vill + Ps - Ratanpur,
Distt. - Supaul
2. Navneet Ranjan S/O Deep Narayan Yadav Ward No. -03, P.S. -
Madhepura, Distt. - Madhepura
3. Raj Kumar 'Rajesh' S/O Nandkishor Yadav At - Musallahpur, Ps. -
Pirbahore, Dist - Patna
4. Rajeev Kumar S/O Surendra Singh At + Po - Belahi Jairam P.S -
Sahiyara Dist - Sitamarhi
5. Ranjit Kumar S/O Raj Kumar Paswan Vill - Belhari P.S - Skeihpur
6. Amar Nath Singh Yadav S/O - Shashvir Yadav At + Po - Kedtna Ps -
Ghogriar Dist - Madhubani
7. Sanjeev Kumar S/O - Ramkhelawan Prasad Moh - Murarpur, P.S. -
Laheri Dist - Nalanda
8. Ravi Ranjan S/O Umesh Pd Vill - Dariyapur Ps- Bind, Dist - Nalanda
9. Rupesh Kumar S/O - Shiv Balak Prasad Morgoan Bhawan Kali Mandir
Road M.G. Nagar, P.S. - Patrkar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Dist - Patna
10. Dharambir Kumar Ranjan S/O - Late Kedar Prasad Vill + Po.
Hussainpur P.S.- Asthawan Dist - Nalanda
11. Yogendra Kumar S/O - Kariman Singh Vill - Gonai Bigha P.S. + Po -
Sesmaba Dist - Jehanabad
12. Santosh Kumar S/O - Rajendra Prasad Vill + P.O. - Maghra P.S. -
Asthawan Dist - Nalanda
13. Ravi Shankar Manjhi S/O - Krishna Deo Majhi 3mf 8/28 B.H. Colony,
Ps. - Agamkuan, Dist - Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 5
14. Majoj Kumar Thakur S/O - Mahendra Thakur Nalanda Medical
College Dept Of Psm P.S.- Agamkuan Kankarbagh Dist - Patna
15. Ajoy Kishore S/O - Nirmal Kumar Das A.M. Colony No -2 Bengali
Tola P.S. - Laheriasarai Dist - Darbhanga
16. Amresh Kumar S/O - Dineshwar Prasad Near Raghvendra Hospital,
P.S. - Laheriasarai Dist - Darbhanga
17. Ramnandan Kumar S/O - Krishna Prasad Quamruddin Ganj P.S. -
Lahari Biharsharif Nalanda
18. Birendra Vijay S/O - Late Ganesh Choudhary Vill - Silao, P.S. + P.O. -
Silao, Dist - Nalanda
19. Bir Bahadur Singh S/O - Bhola Prasad Singh Vill - Mirzapur Ps -
Mahua Dist - Vaishali (Bihar)
20. Yogendra Kumar S/O - Jagnarayan Saw Vill - Bishunganj Ps - Medical
, Dist - Gaya
21. Kanhaiya Kumar Jha S/O - Harish Chandra Jha Vill - Amba Ojha Tola
Ps - Piprahi Dist - Sheohar
22. Prakash Chandra Srivastava S/O - Sureshwar Pd. Srivastava
Bindeshwari Niketan Moh - Sheogang P.S. + P.O. - Narkatiaganj Dist -
- West Champaran
23. Amrendra Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Roy At - Bahadurpur H.N. -27,
Samastipur P.S .+ P.O. + Dist - Samastipur
24. Rakesh Kumar S/O - Ashok Kumar Lal At + P.O. - Khuranda Ps -
Simultala, Dist - Jamui
25. Ravi Kumar Verma S/O - Ran Vijay Kumar Verma At + P.O. + Ps. -
Telharal (Koriyari) Dist - Nalanda, Bihar
26. Kali Kinkar Kasturi S/O Atma Ram Prasad Moh - Udrhamapur, P.S. -
Chowk, Patna City Dist - Patna
27. Rajesh Kumar S/O - Shivandan Sharma Shri Krishna Vihar Colony Ps -
Beur, Patna (Bihar)
28. Sanjay Kumar Bharti S/O - Hari Ram Vill - Langra Ps. Shikarpur Dist -
West Champaran
29. Bhupendra Kumar S/O Basudeo Ram Vill - Garharia Ps - Nautan Dist -
West Champaran
30. Vishwjeet Kumar S/O Jitendra Kumar 'Amresh-Kunj' Moh - Linepar
Mirzapur Ps - Nawada Dist - Nawada (Bihar)
31. Kailash Kumar Jha S/O Tarananda Jha At - Ram Pathi Po+ Ps -
Singheshwar Dist - Madhepura
32. Avinash Kumar S/O Vijay Yadav 'Sukashi Khet Devi' Sthan B.N.R.
Road Ps. - Gulzarbagh Dist - Patna
33. Rohit Kumar Raman S/O Narayan Bhagat Ps + At + Po - Garharia Dist
- Madhepura
34. Dimnal Kumar S/O Shankar Lal Bishwas At - Shivpuri, B.M.P. -
Camp, Ps - Dandkhora Katihar (Bihar)
35. Bhagwati Thakur S/O Jayanand Thakur At - Nayagaon Ps - Deshri Dist
- Vaishali
36. Amar Nath S/O Kameshwar Prasad 318gh, Rampur Colony Ps -
Jamalpur Dist - Munger
37. Kumar Sarvesh Sinha S/O Suresh Pd Singh Dariyapur Gola Ps - Kadam
Kuan, Patna -4
38. Ravi Sinha S/O - Sachidanand Verma Dy. Ceo, Work Shop Account
Office, Ps - Jamalpur (E. Rly), Munger
39. Abnish Kumar S/O Misho Yadav Vill + Po - Orabagicha Ps - Dharara,
Dist - Vaishali
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 6
40. Vikash Chandra S/O - Ravi Shankar Choudhary Vill - Ruphari Ps -
Shikar Ganj, Dist - East Champaran
41. Jay Jay Ram Yadav S/O - Kamal Kishor Yadav At - Mohanpur Ps -
Chautham, Dist - Khagaria (Bihar)
42. Pradeep Kumar S/O - Nand Kishor Mehta C/O - Dharamendra
Choudhary, Vill. Dhanchhuhi, P.S.- Silao, Distt.- Nalanda
43. Mukesh Kumar S/O - Raghudas Vill - Kanchanpur Dhanushi Ps -
Kartahan, Dist - Vaishali
44. Lalitesh Kumar S/O - Balkishor Yadav C/O - Bhagwat Yadav Lodge
Chak - Musallahpur Ps. - Sultan Ganj Dist - Patna
45. Arvind Kumar S/O - Mishri Lal Sah Near Of Shiv Mandir (Sah-Sadan),
Piunibagh, Ps. - Bettian Bettian, W-Champaran
46. Vijay Kumar S/O - Janardan Prasad Sah West - Lohanipur Ps. -
Kadamkuan Dist - Patna - 800003
47. Amit Kumar Gauraw S/O - Late Krishna Prasad 3mf 6/32b.H. Colony,
Bhutnath Road, Kankarbagh, Ps. - Agam Kuan
48. Shashi Ranjan Kumar S/O Krishna Nandan Pd Navratanpur Mandir
South Postal Park P.S. - Kankarbagh Dist - Patna
49. Shekhar Suman S/O Ram Naresh Rai Vill- Chhaprapar P.S. - Barahara
Dist - Bhojpur
50. Bimal Kumar S/O - Bala Gop At + Po - Daulatpur Via - Mallehpur Ps -
Jamui Dist - Jamui
51. Navneet Kumar Choudhary S/O Hridyanand Choudhary Vill + Po -
Bhadwar P.S. - Bagen Gola Dist - Buxar
52. Ranjan Manda S/O Kusum Lal Mandal At - Jaluwar P.S. - Gamahariya
Dist - Madhepura
53. Jairam Prasad S/O Dharikshan Ram Vill + P.O. - Farna P.S. - Barahara
Dist - Bhojpur
54. Ranvijay Kumar S/O Late Suresh Kumar Mahadeopuri Shanti Path,
P.S. - Gardanibagh Dist - Patna
55. Raghu Nath Sah S/O - Sukhan Dan Sah Vill - Harishankarpur P.S. +
P.O. - Tejpur Dist - Samastipur
56. Deepak Kumar Singh S/O Indrajeet Singh Vill + P.O. Sara P.S. Tarari
Dist - Bhojpur (Ara)
57. Subhash Kumar Mahto S/O Ramlakhan Mahto Vill + Po - Choraut P.S
.- Pupri Dist - Sitamarhi
58. Nerendra Kumar Pandit S/O Late Rajendra Pd. Verma Azad Nagar
Road No - 2 South Of Chanomari Road P.S. - Kankarbagh Kankarbagh
Colony, Dist - Patna
59. Vikash Kumar S/O - Preman Chaudhary At + Po - Akawna Bazar Ps.-
Muffasil Thana Dist - Nawada (Bihar)
60. Punit Kumar Singh S/O - Atel Bihari Singh Singh Niwas, H.No - 53,
Jagdeopuri, Jagdeo Path, P.S. - Airport Thana, Dist - Patna
61. Rakesh Kumar S/O - Ram Iqbal Baitha Vill - Katchharipur P.O. -
Sonabarsa Dist - Sitamarhi, Bihar
62. Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/O - Dhruv Deo Prasad Sweet Heart Lane Chak -
Musallahpur P.S. - Sultanganj Dist Patna
63. Kaushal Kumar S/O Giriwar Narayan Mandal Moh - Naya Tola, Line
Bazar, P.S. - K.Hat Dist - Purnea
64. Sanjiv Kumar S/O - Sunil Kumar Sharma At - Rampur Road P.S.-
Bahadurpur Dist - Patna
65. Awdhesh Kumar Prasad S/O Ramdeo Prasad Vill + Po - Madhopur P.S.
- Barauli Dist - Gopalganj
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 7
66. Md. Rizwan S/O - Mainuddin Ahmed Vill + Po - Madhopur Ps. -
Barauli Dist - Gopalganj
67. Pawan Kumar Preetam S/O - Vidyanand Pd Yadav At + Ps - Bhatsara
Dist - Purnea
68. Archana Kumari S/O Brajkishor Verma Moh - Chandpur Bela (Near
Pani Tanki) P.S. - Jakkanpur Dist - Patna
69. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan S/O Narayan Pd. Yadav Vill - Barsam, P.S. +
Via - Mangwar, Dist. - Saharsa
70. Vinay Kumar Mishra S/O Jata Shankar Mishra At + Ps - Balwa, Dist -
Saharsa
71. Rajesh Kumar Sah S/O Yugal Kishor Sah Jai Mahaveer Colony (Near
Ramdev Mahto Boring) Mahendru, P.S. - Sultanganj, Dist - Patna
72. Devesh Bhardwaj S/O Deonandan Jha Devratan Store Ramayan
Market, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Daldali, Bakerganj, Dist - Patna
73. Ravi Ranjan S/O Mithilesh Kumar Sinha 'Prem Kunj' Purandarpur,
B.M. Das Road, P.S. - Pirbahor Thana, Dist - Patna
74. Tej Narayan Singh S/O Tirpit Singh C/O Sharda Academy, P.S. -
Chhota Bariyarpur, Motihari, Dist. - East Champaran
75. Ramjot Kumar Azad S/O Sundar Yadav C/O Jagdamri Yadav Moh -
Kazichr, P.O. + P.S. - Barh, Dist - Patna , 803813
76. Shio Shankar Pal S/O - Ramayan Pal Vill - Horilapur, P.S. - Sonahan,
Dist. - Kaimur (Bhabhua)
77. Archana Kumari D/O Suresh Pd. Yadav At + P.O. - Aran, P.S. - Bihra,
Dist - Saharsa
78. Jitendra Kumar Prasad S/O Ram Nath Prasad H/O Munna Jain ' Suraj
Bhawan' Opp - Patna College, P.S. - Pirbohar, Dist - Patna
79. Savindra Kumar S/O Siya Sharan Ram Vill - Kinjar, P.S. + P.O. -
Kinjar, Dist. - Arwal
80. Anjani Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar Singh At + P.O. - Dhanadihari, Via -
Nehalpur, P.S. - Prasbigha, Dist - Jehanabad
81. Kumar Vishvajit Navratna S/O Ram Janam Kewat Vill - Takiya Kala,
P.S. - Deep Nagar, Dist. -Nalanda
82. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Balram Prasad C/O Kishori Pd. Gautam
Nagar, (Janta Road), P.S. Gardanibagh, Dist - Patna
83. Ram Binod Mahto S/O Ramdin Mahto At - Yamuna Tank, P.S. -
Bachhwara, Dist. - Begusarai
84. Sunil Kumar S/O Ganga Pd. Mahto At - Gudri Muhalla, P.S. +P.O. -
Dalsingh Sarai, Dist - Samastipur, Bihar
85. Manoj Kumar S/O Bhagwat Pd. Rajo Niwas Road No. - 4, Mahesh
Nagar, Keshri Nagar, P.S. - Patliputra, Dist - Patna
86. Rajneesh Bhardwaj S/O Umakant Mishra High School Nargda,
Danapur, P.S .- Danapur, Dist - Patna
87. Sonu Kumar Chaudhary S/O Budhan Chaudhary At + P.S. -
Laheriasarai, Dist - Darbhanga
88. Amit Kumar S/O Pramod Pd. Teacher Colony (Kumhrar), P.S Agam
Kuan, Dist - Patna
89. Pravin Kumar S/O Late Kaushal Prasad C/O Niraj Kumar
Balbhadurpur, Nr. Dr. N.P. Mishra Chowk, Behind S.S. Villa, P.S. -
Laheriasarai, Dist.- Darbhanga
90. Kundan Kumar S/O Krishna Mohan Prasad Abbu Mahmadpur, P.S. -
Bhtiyarpur, Dist - Patna
91. Manish Kumar S/O Vijay Kumar New Chitra Gupta Nagar, Back Of
Ruchi Soft, P.S. - Kankarbagh, Dist - Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 8
92. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Bindeshwari Prasad Near Bindy Prasad Clinic,
Ashok Raj Path, Mahendru, P.S .- Sultanganj, Dist - Patna
93. Manish S/O Rambabu Mishra At + P.O. - Rawaich, P.S. -
Bakhtiyarpur, Dist. Patna (Bihar)
94. Manish Kishore S/O Ramsihwar Prasad Vill - Rani Sarai, P.O. + P.S. -
Bakhtiyarpur Dist. - Patna (Bihar)
95. Shailendra Kumar Sah S/O Mahendra Pd. Sah Maliya Para, P.S -
K.Hat, P.S. - Purnia (Bihar)
96. Manish Kumar S/O Dinesh Kumar Singh At - Naya Tola Madhopur,
P.O. + P.S. - Bakhtiyarpur, Dist . - Patna
97. Mritunjay Kumar S/O Shanichar Ram Vill + P.O. - Kochhasa, P.S. -
Kinjer, Dist - Arwal
98. Gyan Chandra Gupta S/O B.N. Gupta South Mandri, Near Kathpur, H.
No. - A/180, 244, P.S. - Buddha Colony Dist. - Patna
99. Deepu Kumar S/O Krishna Mohan Pd. Vill - Shanti Nagar, P.O. + P.S.
+ Dist.- Jehanabad
100. Rajeev Kumar S/O Bipin Bihari Verma Puspanjali Vihar Appt. F.N. -
C/102, P.S. - Gardanibagh Road No. -1, Saristabad, Dist - Patna
101. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Vishwanath Prasad Yadav Block No. -2,
Quarter No. -2, Road No. -6 (B) P.S.- Gardanibagh Dist - Patna
102. Jitendra Bahadur Singh S/O Ram Singh Vill + P.O. - Dullahpur, P.S. -
Simari, Dist. -Buxar
103. Prakash Kumar Singh S/O Bikrama Singh Vill + P.O. - Dullahpur, P.S.
- Simari, Dist. -Buxar
104. Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Janki Singh Kateya Road Vanarsi Tola,
Bihiya P.O. + P.S. - Bihiya, Dist - Bhojpur
105. Bijay Kumar S/O Parmanand Prasad Gardanibagh Road No. -10, Qtr.
No. -44, Behind Damariya , Anisabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, Dist. - Patna
106. Vijay Kumar Diwakar S/O Nirdhan Das At - Bishanpur Gausi, P.S. -
Mahnar, Dist. - Vaishali
107. Ajit Kumar Nagj Narayan Pd Srivastava Nithanpura Near Durgasthan,
P.S. - Mithanpura, Dist. - Muzaffarpur
108. Rajeev Ranjan S/O Sohan Prasad At - Kazipur , P.S - Kadam Kuan,
Dist. - Patna
109. Shweta Sundram D/O Chandra Mohan Pd. At - Karmali Chak, P.S. - By
Pass Dist - Patna
110. Rakesh Kumar S/O Ramhit Mahto At + Parmanandpur P.S - Dumra,
Dist. Sitamarhi
111. Sujit Kumar S/O Kamehswar Nath Pandey Vill - Chainpura Ps- Bihta
Dist - Patna
112. Kunal Krishna S/O Jayant Lal Das Salehpur Lodge Langer Toli Gali
Nala Road, Ps. Kadamkuan Dist - Patna
113. Surjeet Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Prasad At + P.O Doiya Ps. Nursarai
Dis. Nalanda
114. Anil Kumar S/O Rameshwar Prasad Vill + Po - Pahasaul Ps. - Katra
Dist, Muzaffarpur
115. Mukesh Kumar S/O Ram Ratan Singh Vill + P.O. - Sadopur Ps. Alipur,
Dist. Gaya
116. Pravendra Kumar S/O Indradeo Prasad Singh Vill. Malhipur, P.S. S.
Kamal, Dist. Begusarai
117. Kamakhya Narayan Singh S/O Late Chandeshwar Singh Ps + Po -
Sakari Dist. Arwal
118. Abhishek Kumar S/O Ramayan Ram Ramjaipal Nagar Bailey Road,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 9
Gola Road, Ps Rupeshpur Danapur, Dist - Patna
119. Archana Bharati D/O Umesh Prasad Vill. Dariyapur P.S. - Bind, Dist.
Nalanda
120. Vijay Kumar Sah S/O Paspat Sah Vill. Halimpur P.S. Mejarganj Dist.
Sitamarhi
121. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan S/O Bajrangi Ram Hig Colony Sce-7 Block -5
Flat No. 32 P.S. Agamkuan Dist. - Patna
122. Priyadarshi Kumar Pankaj S/O Makeshwar Pankaj Sri Nagar, Near
Aiswarya Apartment, P.S.- Rajiv Nagr Dist. - Patna
123. Santosh Kumar Pankaj S/O Rambachan Sharma Vill. Vsari P.S. Pali
Dist. Jahanabad
124. Sahilesh Kumar S/O Birendra Prasad P.S. - Aungar Dist. Nalanda
125. Mumtaj Alam S/O Ramju Miyan Vill. + P.S. - Islampur Dist.Nalanda
126. Deepak Kumar S/O Yado Singh Vill +P.O. -Teyar P.S. Akbarpur Dist.
Nalanda
127. Pramod Kumar S/O Hoshila Samani At. Diulia P.S. Shikarpur Dist.
West Champaran
128. Durga Nand Yadav S/O Ram Narayan Yadav At - Khursaha P.S.
Andharmath Dist. Madhubani
129. Chandra Dev Prasad S/O Puran Ray Vill. Dagaroal P.S. + Via - Dmch
Laheriasarai Dist. - Darbhanga
130. Dilip Kumar S/O Late Baliram Pandit Vill. Hinduni P.S Phulwarisharif
Dist. Patna
131. Kumar Abhishek S/O Ramchandra Pd. Singh At - Sahsi Alouli Dist.
Khagaria
132. Sanjeet Kumar S/O Gupteshwar Sharma Vill. Newan P.S. Pipara Dist.
Patna
133. Md. Qaisar Alam S/O Md. Farooque Ahmad At. Bara P.S. - Chandauty
Dist. Gaya
134. Chiranjibi Mishra Null C/O - Akun Mishra G/P Kasba, P.S. -
Shambhuganj, Dist. Banka
135. Arun Kumar S/O Lohdi Singh Vill. - Baghakol P.S. Haspura Dist.
Aurangabad
136. Jitendra Kumar S/O Surendra Prasad Lf-3, Block -4, Q.No. 261,
Bahadurpur Housing Colony P.S. Agamkuan Dist. Patna
137. Manoj Kumar S/O Krishnandan Prasad Vill - Karah-Dih P.S. - Silao
Dist. Nalanda
138. Sohan Prasad S/O Bhiku Singh Vill.- Saheb Tola P.S. Bihiya Dist.
Bhojpur
139. Md. Mahtab Alam S/O Md. Waki Ali Rajabazar Bihiya Ward No. 7 Ps.
Bihiya Dist. Bhojpur
140. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma S/O Krishan Mohan Sharma Raja Bazar Chowk
Bihiya P.S. - Bihiya Dist. - Bhojpur
141. Vikash Kumar Alok S/O Vidyanand Arya At . Pothiya Bazar P.S. -
Falka Dist. Katihar
142. Pradip Kumar S/O - Umesh Sah Vill - Chakeyaj P.S. Mahnar Dist.
Vaishali
143. Rina Kumari D/O - Upendra Singh C/O - Kapil Dev Prasad Singh Vill -
Karauti, P.S. - Bakhtiyarpur, Dist. - Patna
144. Lalita D/O Ramchandra Pandit Patel Seva Nagar Sri Hari Path Road
No. 5 Bhagwat Nagar Kumhrar P.S. - Agamkuan Dist - Patna
145. Pinku Kumar S/O Late Bangali Lal Verma Vill + P.S. - Daniawan Dist.
Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 10
146. Manoj Kumar Ranjan S/O Jay Prakash Ram Vill - Belowon P.S. -
Kaler, Dist Arwal
147. Manoj Kumar S/O Ram Babu Mh. Pratappur P.S. - Menadiganj Dist.
Patna
148. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary S/O Jagdishpur Chaudhary B-403 Sanjana
Sashwatam Apartment, Aran Garden Road Jagdeo Path, P.S. -
Rupeshpur Dist. Patna
149. Gaurav Sinha S/O - Awadhesh Kumar Sinha North Mandiri Bans Ghat
Ganga Manal Flat No. -9 P.S. - Kotwali Dist. Patna
150. Ajay Kumar Jha S/O - Manmohan Jha Dharamshala Road Jogbani P.S.
- Jogabani Dist Arariya , Bihar
151. Rajiv Kumar Verma S/O - Krishnandan Pd. Verma Vill . Dharahara
P.S. - Silao , Dist. - Nalanda
152. Ghanshyam Kumar S/O Mahadeo Singh Vill. Narpharpura P.S. -
Sonbarsa Dist. Sitamarhi
153. Rishikesh Kumar S/O Deonarayan Ram Postal Park Indra Nagar Road
No. 1 (West) New Bangali Tola, P.S. - Jakkanpur Dist. Patna
154. Kanhaiya Lal S/O Late Tarkeshwar Prasad Mandal P.S. - Adampur
Dist. Bhagalpur
155. Sanjeev Kumar Jha S/O Bishwamber Jha Vill. - Kadwa P.S. - Sonali
Dist. - Katihar
156. Kumar Gaurav Kishore S/O - Kailash Prasad Moh - Bichali Kuan P.S -
Rajgir Dist. - Nalanda
157. Manoj Kumar S/O Vishwanath Paswan Tubewell No.2 Shekhpura P.S.
Shastri Nagar Dist. Patna
158. Birendra Kumar S/O Maheshwar Paswan B.S.R.T.C. Camp Jail
Transport Colony P.S. - Shastri Nagar Dist. Patna
159. Vijay Kumar Sah S/O - Maheshwar Sah Vill - Parmanandpur P.S. -
Mahrar Road Dist. - Vaishali
160. Kashi Prasad S/O Ramshis Ram Bhabhua Ward -11 Behind Nagar
Palika P.S .- Bhabhua Dist. Kaimur
161. Ashutosh Kumar S/O - Nawal Kishor Thakur Backside Of Mithal -
Auto Subash Nagar P.S - Purnea Dist. Purnea
162. Rahul Kumar Shrivastavawashtawa S/O Vinay Kumar
Shrivastavawastawa Vill - Pataura Lala Tola Motihari, P.S. - Mufasil
Motihari, Dist. East Champaran
163. Sanjay Kumar Shaw S/O Sri Ishwar Chand Shaw 295/3 G.T. Road
(G+1) P.S. Bally Dist - Howrah
164. Manoj Kumar Singh S/O Ram Balas Singh Tola Suryapur At. Punarakh
P.S. - Pandarakh Dist. - Patna
165. Vijya Shankar S/O Bhudhdeo Prasad Vill.- Lal Bandi, Hanuman Nagar,
P.S.- Sonbarsa, Distt.- Sitamarhi
166. Ashish Kumar S/O Ramjee Sharma Ram Jaipal Nagar, Gola Road,
Biley Road, Danapur, P.S.- Rupashpur, Distt.- Patna
167. Rajeev Ranjan S/O Salindra Sah Vill.- Banchauri, P.S.- Dumra, Distt.-
Sitamarhi
168. Ravindra Kumar S/O Sri Styanarayan Sah Vill.- Banchuri, P.S.- Dumra,
Distt.- Sitamarhi
169. Munna Kumar S/O Nandu Kumar Verma Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Laheri,
Bihar Sharif, Distt.- Nalanda
170. Ritesh Kumar Jha S/O Dinesh Chandra Jha At Tulsipur, P.S.- Kharik,
Distt.- Bhagalpur
171. Sundram S/O Sri Ramesh Jha At Khajuraha, P.S.- Sonbarsa, Distt.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 11
Saharsa
172. Yogendra Kumar S/O Late Sant Saran Prasad Shalimpur Park Road,
Swasthya Kendra Gali, P.S. Kadamkuan, Distt.- Patna
173. Alok Kumar C/O Damodar Rajak R/O Vill.- Malia, P.S.- Chanan,
Distt.- Lakhisarai
174. Sandeep Kumar S/O Ganga Pd. Singh Mahavir Chowk, Baheri, At-
Baheri, P.S.- Hathauri, Distt.- Darbhanga
175. Sanjeev Kumar Poddar S/O Poddar Raghubar Dayal Choudhary Tola,
Near- Maddle School, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna
176. Sudhir Kumar S/O Ram Narayan Choudhary At Kunjawan, P.S.- Bihta,
Distt.- Patna
177. Anandi Prasad Mandal S/O Mohan Prasad Mandal (Kanahi Bhawan),
Musallahpur Hat, Rampur Lale, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Dist.- Patna
178. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Nathun Choudhary Kusumpuram Colony Beli
Road, P.S.- Danapur Cant., Dist.- Patna
179. Vishal Kumar S/O Nand Kishor Sharma New Devi Mahto Loade Room
No.-4, Nahar Road, R.K. Colony, Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.-
Patna
180. Ashish Kumar S/O Late Jagdish Paswan Moh.- Banovila, P.S.-
Biharsharif, Dist.- Nalanda
181. Anand Paswan S/O Siyasharam Paswan Moh.- Shivpuri, Chitkohra,
P.S.- Gardnibagh, Dist.- Patna
182. Manoj Kumar Sinha S/O Lalji Pd. Singh At Adarsh Colony,
Vivekanand Marg, Road No. 2, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna
183. Mahendra Pandit S/O Bijay Pandit Vill. +P.S.- Rajauli, Dist.- Nawada
184. Sanjya Kumar Singh S/O Deonath Singh Vill.- Devkhaira, P.S.-
Kochas, Distt.- Rohtas
185. Sajan Kumar S/O Ambika Pd. Singh C/O Sri Sant Lal, Kunkun Singh
Lane, P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Patna
186. Prema Nand Jha S/O Sharda Nanda Jha Flat No. 173/800, Lala Bahadur
Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna
187. Prem Chand Kumar Papu S/O Late Umesh Prasad Mandal At Tulapalti,
P.S.- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul
188. Arun Kumar S/O Ram Kishun Prasad Ramchandra Pur, P.S.- Laheri,
Bihar Sharif, Dist.- Nalanda
189. Ajit Kumar S/O Nand Kumar Singh Vill.- Amalya, P.S.- Asharganj,
Dist.- Munger
190. Sumit Kumar S/O Kamal Kumar Verma New Road Chowk, Patna City,
P.S.- Chowk, Dist.- Patna
191. Braj Vihari S/O Indradeo Pandit Vill.- Bhikhani Bigha, P.S.- Sare,
Dist.- Nalanda
192. Santosh Kumar S/O Late Dayanand Sharma Mahesh Nagar, P.S.-
Patliputra, Dist.- Patna
193. Preetam Kumar Deepak S/O Damodar Prasad Chand Chowra
Sukhmana Mahadeo, P.S.- Civil Line, Dist.- Gaya
194. Lalit Kumar S/O Deo Narayan Poddar Vill.- Simari, P.S.- Baheri, Dist.-
Darbhanga
195. Ravi Ranjan S/O Krishnanda Singh Vill.- Bhikhanpur, P.S.- Shankund,
Dist.- Bhagalpur
196. Shashi Bhushan Bharti S/O Ravi Bhushan Bharti P.S.- Sheikhpura,
Dist.- Sheikhpura
197. Sudhanshu Shekhar S/O Sri Lalan Chouhan Truck Syndicret, P.S.-
Buxar, Dist.- Buxar
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 12
198. Ravi Kumar Arya S/O Sri Deo Nagarya Prasad Arya Naya Bazar Purani
Hospital Gali, P.S.- Lakhishari, Dist.- Lakhishari
199. Prakash Kumar S/O Late Suresh Prasad H.No. B/15, West Alkapuri,
P.S.- Gardanibah, Dist.- Patna
200. Randhir Kumar S/O Late Suresh Prasad H.No. B/15, West Alkapuri,
P.S.- Gandanibah, Dist.- Patna
201. Dhirendra Kumar Singh Sk/O Ramashish Singh Vill.- Budhi Chhapra,
P.S.- G.B. Nagar (Tarwara), Dist.- Siwan
202. Subhash Prasad Singh S/O Bharat Yadav Vill.- Rishidih, P.O.-
Markama, P.S.- Aliganj, Dist.- Jamui
203. Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari S/O Sushil Tiwari Shalimar Paints Ltd., 22
Kankarbagh Road, Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna
204. Subodh Kumar S/O Bijay Singh Vill.- Dhanwara, P.S.- Akbarpur, Dist.-
Nawada
205. Kumar Sanjit S/O Janardan Dwivedi Mitra Mandal Colony, A/10,
Anisabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
206. Rajesh Kumar Sahani S/O Raghawpati Sahani Ratanmala Malahi Tola,
P.S.- Bagaha, Dist.- West Champaran
207. Shatshi Kant Parsad S/O Munee Prasad Vill.- Raipurchor, P.S.-
Shiosagar, Dist.- Rohtas
208. Santosh Kumar S/O Late Balmukund Prasad Sinha Vill.- Alipur, P.S.-
Bind, Dist.- Nalanda
209. Indrajeet Kumar S/O Hari Nandan Prasad Vill.- Saindih, P.S.- Silao,
Dist.- Nalanda
210. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar Gupta Balughat Road, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur
211. Shankar Kumar S/O Tripti Narayan Thakur P.S.- Janakpur Road, Distt.-
Sitamarhi
212. Kumar Rajiv Ranjan S/O Subhash Chandra Jha Vill.- Masoi (East),
P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur
213. Jay Narayan Kumar S/O Late Ramgulam Sah P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.-
Begusarai
214. Bhupendra Bihari S/O Krishna Bihari Vill.- Mankaura, P.S.- Barh,
Distt.- Patna
215. Shashi Kant Singh S/O Rama Shankar Singh Yarpur Rajputana Near-
Dvc, Small Quarter, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna
216. Sanjay Kumar S/O Maheshwar Prasad Sah Mohammadpur, Mahendru,
P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna
217. Shankar Kumar Srivastava S/O Dinesh Prasad Srivastava Rajeev Pan
Bhandar, Infront Of Payal Cinema, P.S.- Chhatauni Chowk, Motihari,
East Champaran
218. Shushil Kumar Singh S/O Late Ramakant Singh Rental Flat - 20, Lohia
Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna
219. Navnet Kumar S/O Arvind Kumar Road No. 1-, Q. No.-17, Near Babu
Bazar, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Patna
220. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Ramchadnra Pd. Yadav Jai Prakash Nagar,
P.S.- Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna
221. Prakash Chandra Lal S/O Late Parasnath North Shastri Nagar, P.S.-
Shastri Nagar, C.D.A. Colony, H. No. -4, Distt.- Patna
222. Krishna Kumar Sharma S/O Ramadhar Sharma H. No.- 181, C.D.A.
Colony, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna
223. Ajay Kumar S/O Chandrakant Kamat At - Kamarkala, P.S.- Singha,
Distt.- Darbhanga
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 13
224. Om Prakash S/O Chandra Kant Kamat At - Kamarkala, P.S.- Singhia,
Distt.- Darbhanga
225. Ranvijay Kumar S/O Late Shri Vijay Narayan Sinha P.S.- Mendiganj,
Patna City, Distt.- Patna
226. Modassar Imam S/O Haidar Imam Vill.- Basuham, P.S.- Bahera, Distt.-
Darbhanga
227. Sajjan Kumar S/O Bal Brind Prasad Vill.- Brararaj, P.O.- Ekanger Dih,
P.S.- Ekanger Sarai, Distt.- Nalanda
228. Rajeev Kumar S/O Rajkumar Raut Vill.+P.O.- Dhelwan, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna
229. Murari Kumar S/O Ramadhar Singh Sanjay Nagar, Road No. - 10, Near
New Bye Pass, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna
230. Amit Kumar Gupta S/O Muktinath Gupta Vill.- Salasla, P.S.-
Navanagar, Distt.- Buxar
231. Sanjay Kumar Sah S/O Om Prakash Sah At + P.O.- Banmankhi (Ward
No.-17), P.S.- Banmankhi, Distt.- Patna
232. Kumar Ritesh Ranjan S/O Triveni Prasad Singh Vill.- Chandanpur,
P.S.- Naya Ramnagar, Distt.- Munger
233. Amit Kumar Mandal S/O Ram Bilash Mandal Vill.- Gangania, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur
234. Pramod Kumar S/O Tej Narayan Yadav Vill.- Bhurahi, P.S.- Sukhpur,
Distt.- Supaul
235. Phool Kumar Sharma S/O Late Govind Thakur Vill.- Basudeopur, P.S.-
Kajra, Distt.- Lakhisarai
236. Manoj Kumar S/O Arvind Prasad Ray Vill.- Jagdishpur, Babadham,
P.S.- Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
237. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey S/O Ram Lakshan Pandey Mahalaxmi
Tobacco Stores, Rituraj Market, Gobarsahi Chowk, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur
238. Shankar Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar P.O.- Martam Road Shiv Nagar,
P.S.- Nawada, Distt.- Nawada
239. Karpuri Thakur S/O Narayan Thakur Vill.- Chainpur, P.O.- Jaipur,
P.S.- Chandi, Distt.- Nalanda
240. Shambhu Kumar S/O Rajendra Singh Vill.- Malichak, P.S.- Paras
Bigha, Distt.- Jehanabad
241. Sunil Kumar S/O Rampujan Sah Police Colony, Qtr. No. B/51,
Anishabad, P.S.- Phulwarish, Dist.- Patna
242. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Lalan Ram Flat No.- 254/800, Lal Bahadur, P.S.-
Shastri Nagar, Distt.- Patna
243. Ravi Bhushan Pandey S/O Virendra Kumar Pandey Vill.- Dhankutwa,
P.S.- Chanpariya, Distt.- West Champaran
244. Mantu Chaudhary S/O Late Lakchman Chaudhary Dr. Sarojini Kumar,
Ward No. 13, P.S.+Distt.- Samastipur
245. Nandan Kumar S/O Deonarayan Prasad H/O Maa Niwas, P.S.- Kadam
Kuan, At - Chaintola Lane, Dist.- Patna
246. Brijesh Kumar Singh S/O Lalan Singh Tulshi Bhan New Bigrahpur,
Opp. New Bus Stand, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna
247. Rajnikant S/O Rajendra Singh Vill.+P.O.- Noawan, P.S.- Asthawan,
Dist.- Nalanda
248. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Rameshwar Singh Vill.- Farkhurpur,
P.S.+Dist.- Arwal
249. Chandra Bhushan Kumar S/O Krishna Dev Prasad Mishri Tola, Tekari
Road, Patthar Ki Maszid, Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 14
250. Sandeep Kumar S/O Ganga Ram Yadav At + P.O.- Kasma Marar, P.S.-
Khanjauli, Distt.- Madhubani
251. Upendra Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Sah Vill.- Bhanpur, Barewa, Dist.-
Vaishali
252. Md. Hemayoon S/O Md. Khalil Ahmad At- Agarpur, P.S.- Lodipur,
Distt.- Bhagalpur
253. Ramodh Kumar S/O Nathuni Prasad Riga Mill Bazar Babhangawa
Road, Back Side Of Hanuman Mandir, P.S.- Riga, Dist.- Sitamarhi
254. Pramod Kumar S/O Suraj Prasad Moh.- Nawagarhi, Near Old Jain
Temple, Gaya, P.S.- Civil Line Gaya, Distt.- Gaya
255. Sudhir Kumar S/O Chandreshwar Vidyarthi Shanti Koti, Chopra Bazar,
P.S.- Janki Nagar, Dist.- Purnea
256. Om Prakash Kumar S/O Jagdish Paswan At- Madhuban, P.O.- Chopra
Ramnagar, P.S.- Janki Nagar, Distt.- Purnea
257. Sushil Kumar S/O Lakshman Sah Vill.- Jamuana, P.S.- Sonbarsa,
Distt.- Sitamarhi
258. Murari Kumar Sinha S/O Dadan Lal Road No.-2, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna
259. Rakesh Prasad S/O Babu Sahab Prasad Vill.- Bahurwa, P.S.- Sathi,
Dist.- West Champaran
260. Shailesh Kumar Singh S/O Ram Bilas Singh Rajiv Nagar, Road No. -
15/D, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, Distt.- Patna
261. Md. Asad Ahamad S/O Raghib Ali Siddiqui C/O Bela Market
Swarajkpori Road, P.S.- Gaya Sadar, Dist.- Gaya
262. Amod Kumar Choudhary S/O Sagun Lal Chaudhary Nalanda Bhawan,
1st Floor Rajapul, P.S.- Budha Colony, Dist.- Patna
263. Shivam Kumar S/O Ramphal Matho Rajbag Janakpur Road, P.S.-
Pupri, Dist.- Sitamarhi
264. Pawan Kumar Yadav S/O Adhiklal Yadav Vill.- Janardan Din, P.S.- H.
Khargpur, Dist.- Munger
265. Kamal Kant Kumar S/O Murari Prasad New Colony Mahadev Asthan,
Ward No.-02, P.S.- Sekhpura, Dist.- Patna
266. Rajesh Kumar Asingh S/O Parmand Singh At- Lohanipur (Near Kath
Pool), P.S.- Kadamkuan, Dist.- Patna
267. Bhogendra Sahni S/O Shiv Nandan Sahni Vill.- Kasma, P.S.- Khajuali,
Dist.- Madhubani
268. Ranjit Kumar S/O Ram Sagar Yadav Moh.- Mogalpura, P.O.- Lalbag,
Dist.- Darbhanga, P.S.- Baheri
269. Sharvan Kumar S/O Vanwari Saw Vill.- Mafo, P.S.- Mehus, Dist.-
Sheikhpura
270. Jitendra Kumar Prasad S/O Dhruv Prasad Vill.- Amwa, P.S.-
Majhaulia, Dist.- West Champaran
271. Puroshottam Kumar S/O Late Surendra Sharma Moh.- Math
Laxmanpur Koiry Tola, P.S.- Gulzarbagh, Dist.- Patna
272. Indu Bhushan Singh S/O Bharat Bhushan Singh At- Mango Bander,
P.S.- Kahria, Dist.- Jamui
273. Goutam Kumar Sah S/O Ramchandra Sah At- Makkhachak Bakhari
Bazaar Begusarai, P.S.- Bakhari, Dist.- Begusarai
274. Anil Kumar S/O Chhabb Yadav Room No. - 10b, Near Mislenious
General Store Mahendru, P.S.- Shahganj, Dist.- Patna
275. Amit Kumar S/O Late Ayodhya Sah Moh.- Belwaganj, P.S.- Laheria
Sarai, Dist.- Darbhanga
276. Gyan Prakash S/O Ambika Singh Vill.- Tarrari, P.S.- Tarrari, Dist.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 15
Bhojpur
277. Dharmveer Kumar Singh S/O Tanki Nadan Singh Vill.- Sipara (West),
P.O.- Dhelwan, P.S.- Beur, Dist.- Patna
278. Ajay Kumar Yadav S/O Parmeshwar Yadav C/O Krishna Prasad Nilu
Sadan Chai Tola Gali Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Patna
279. Rakesh Ranjan S/O Jairam Thakur Vill.- Sheotha, P.S.- Shar, Distt.-
Bhojpur
280. Arun Kumar S/O Surja Deo Prasad Vill.- Beri Kewai, P.S.+P.O.-
Daniwan, Distt.- Patna
281. Jitendra Nath S/O Ram Cachhan Ram Vill.- Gouspur Izra, P.S.-
Hajipur, Dist.- Vaishali
282. Bipul Kumar Singh S/O Jai Kumar Singh Vill.- Barkberi, P.S.-
Mohudin Nagar, Dist.- Samastipur
283. Dhananjay Kumar S/O Satyendra Narayan Singh Near Patliputra
Central School, Ward No.-12, P.S.- Bashnahi, Dist.- Saharsa
284. Rashmi Roy D/O Jagdeo Roy Near B.N.R. Gate, B.N.R. Road, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Dist.- Patna
285. Vikash Kumar Thakur S/O Lal Babu Thakur Vill.- Kathaur, Via-
Belsand, P.S.- Parsauni, Dist.- Sitamarhi
286. Kalyan Kumar Kavi S/O Mohan Jha At- Ekma, P.S.- Supaul, Dist.-
Supaul
287. Vijay Shekhar Jha S/O Ram Sagar Jha Vill.- Mustafapur, P.S.+Dist.-
Samastipur
288. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Ram Nagina Singh Rice Section Mithapur,
P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna
289. Shishupal Kumar S/O Surendra Kumar Verma Kp-20 Kailashpuri,
P.O.- Lohianagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Dist.- Patna
290. Vikesh Kumar S/O Rajeshwar Singh At-Krishna Garh Near Chitra
Cinema, P.S.+P.O.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur
291. Majoj Kumar S/O Bigan Ram At- Rajepur, P.S.+P.O.- Dhaka, Dist.-
East Champaran
292. Amresh Kumar Singh S/O Kailashpati Singh Ghagha Ghat, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Mahendru, Dist.- Patna
293. Mithilesh Kumar S/O Hriday Singh Vill.- Malichak, P.S.- Parasbigha,
Dist.- Jehanabad
294. Raman Krishnan Raman S/O Yugeshwar Mahto Moh.- V.I.P. Colony,
P.S.- Nawada, Dist.- Nawada
295. Shobha Prasad S/O Beldeo Singh At- Belari, P.S.- Ujiarpur, Dist.-
Samastipur
296. Johannand Kumar S/O Late Kashi Ram Chandravanshi Nagar,
Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Dist.- Patna
297. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Indrajeet Singh Priyadarshi Nagar, Kumhrar,
P.S.- Agam Kuan, Dist.- Patna
298. Deepak Kumar S/O Nagendra Prasad Singh At- Sarsouni, P.O.-
Ahilgaon, P.S.- Jalalgarh, Dist.- Purnea
299. Chandra Manish Thakur S/O Dilip Thakur At - Kadrachak, P.S.-
Shambhuganj, Dist.- Banka
300. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Ambika Prasad Vill.- Neman Bigha, P.S.-
Rajauli, Dist.- Nawada
301. Bimlesh Kumar Singh S/O Kishore Mohan Singh Vill.- Khdiha, P.S.-
Deo, Dist.- Aurangabad
302. Ram Janma Singh S/O Harinandan Singh Bank Men'S Colony
Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankadbagh, Dist.- Patna,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 16
Bihar
303. Jai Mahadeo Ratan Jyoti S/O Late Ram Chandra Singh Vill.- Kastoli
East Tola, P.S.- Mansurachak, Dist.- Begusarai
304. Rajesh Krishnan S/O Yugeshwar Manto Moh.- V.I.P. Colony, P.S.-
Nawada, Dist.- Nawada, Bihar
305. Chandan Kumar S/O Budhdeo Singh Vill.- Bihma, P.S.- Tarapur, Dist.-
Munger, Bihar
306. Ranjan Amit Kumar Singh S/O Mithilesh Kumar Singh P.S.-
Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar
307. Avadh Bihari S/O Rajeshwar Pandey Vill.- Madhopur, P.S.- Harnut,
Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar
308. Satish Kumar S/O Kamta Sharma Vill.- Sahakara, P.S.- Takare, Dist.-
Gaya, Bihar
309. Bipin Kumar Jha S/O Binod Jha Vill.- Bhawanipur, P.S.- Madhepur,
Dist.- Madhubani
310. Gyan Sagar S/O Deo Narayan Prasad Singh Moh.- Mahalpar,
P.S.+P.O.- Bihar Sharif, Distt.- Nalanda
311. Trun Kumar Roy S/O Rajendra Roy Vill.- Jagdispur, Babadhan, P.S.-
Surjgarha, Distt.- Lakhisharya, Bihar
312. Navin Kumar Sah S/O Sikandar Sah Vill.- Hathia, P.S.- Belahar, Dist.-
Banka, Bihar
313. Md. Manzoor Alam S/O Late Md. Raeeshuddin Vill.- Akbarpur, P.S.-
Badh, Dist.- Patna, Bihar
314. Manoj Kumar S/O Rijhan Yadav Vill.- Chhaparadhi, P.S.- Jay Nagar,
Dist.- Madhubani, Bihar
315. Dhananjay Kumar Roy S/O Nagendra Kumar Roy At Chak-
Musallahpur, P.S.- Pirbhor, Dist.- Patna, Bihar
316. Dilip Kumar S/O Suresh Prasad Roy Vill.- Kashikund, P.S.- Jhajha,
Dist.- Jamui
317. Nagendra Kumar S/O Basudev Prasad Yadav Vill.- Rasalpura, P.S.-
Sitamari, Dist.- Nawada
318. Manoj Kumar S/O Ram Lochan Sah At Shasabad, P.S.- Sultanganj,
Dist.- Bhagalpur, Bihar
319. Shahadat Hussain Ansari S/O Md. Amiruddin Vill.- Nawada, P.S.-
Vaishali, Dist.- Vaishali, Bihar
320. Md. Bahauddin S/O Md. Alauddin Vill.+P.O.+P.S.- Goraul, Dist.-
Vaishali, Bihar
321. Rajeev Kumar Sinha S/O Ravindra Kumar Sinha Putul Niketan, A/102,
A.G. Colony, P.S.- Shashtri Nagar, Dist.- Patna, Bihar
322. Manoj Kumar S/O Satya Nagarayan Singh Vill.- Mansoorpur, P.S.-
Vaishali, Dist.- Vaishali, Bihar
323. Santosh Kumar S/O Sant Bilash Prasad P.S.- Sultanganj Mahendru,
Dist.- Patna, Bihar
324. Nitish Kumar S/O Ravindra Prasad At- Ishua, P.S.- Giriyak, Dist.-
Nalanda, Bihar
325. Nandan Kumar Ks/O Mathura Sharma Vill.- Alkhipur, P.S.- Salimpur,
Dist.- Patna, Bihar
326. Birjun Kumar S/O Surendra Kumar At- Chatar, P.S.- Makhdumpur,
Dist.- Jehanabad, Bihar
327. Dipak Kumar Roy S/O Sarwanand Roy Kashinath Lane, Near Shiva
Mandir, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Dist.- Patna, Bihar
328. Aditya Kumar Choudhary S/O Yagal Kishor Choudhary Kashi Nath
Lane, East Lohanipur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Dist.- Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 17
329. Sudhanshu Kumar Srivastava S/O Rajendra Prasad At + P.O.-
Sonbarsa, P.S.- Piro, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar
330. Satish Kumar S/O Bihswanath Sharma Vill.- Niranjan Bigha, P.S.-
Dehri-On-Sone, Dist.- Rohtas
331. Sudhir Kumar Singh At- Mandman Colony, P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.-
Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand
332. Upendra Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Sah Vill.- Bhanpur Barewa, P.S.-
Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali
333. Ranjeet Kumar Suman S/O Rajeshwar Paswan Moh.- Yamunanagar
(Surya Mandir), P.S.- Aurangabad, Dist.- Aurangabad
334. Kanhaiya Prasad S/O R.P. Prasad Vill.+P.O.+P.S.- Piprahi, Dist.-
Sheohar
335. Ram Binod Sharma S/O Laxmi Thakur (Sadhu Mahato Lodge), Chok-
Mussallahpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, Mahendru, Dist.- Patna
336. Suman Kumar Saurabh S/O Uma Kant Singh C/O Ramayan Singh
Lodge, Near Kaath Pool, West Lohanipur, P.S.+P.O.- Kadamkuan,
Dist.- Patna
337. Jitendra Kumar Singh S/O Surendra Singh H/O Ramjit Bhagat, At -
New Bigrhpur (New Bus Stand, Patna), P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna
338. Kishor Kumar Gupta S/O Tribhuvan Pd. At- Babhani, P.S. + Via-
Supaul, Dist.- Madhepura, State- Bihar
339. Rajeev Kumar S/O Srichandra Prasad Vill.- Naya Tola Madhopur (Near
Lpg School), P.O.+P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.- Patna
340. Kanchan Kumari D/O Rama Shrya Mahto Harnichak Rowshan Colony,
P.S.- Beur, Dist.- Patna
341. Vandana Sharma Kaushik W/O Ranjeet Kumar Singh K-42, P.C.
Colony, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Kankadbag, Dist.- Patna
342. Soroj Kumar Jyoti S/O Mungeshwar Prasad Rajak Proff. Colony,
Musallahpur Hat, P.S.- Shaganj, Dist.- Patna
343. Jeeterndr Kumar S/O Ram Bilas Mahto Loco Coloy Khagaul, Qr. No.
258/F, P.S.- Khagaul, Danapur Railway Station, Dist.- Patna
344. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Manendra Pd. Yadav R.K. Colony, East Of
Bazar Samiti, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Mahendru, Dist.- Patna
345. Sanjeet Kumar Jha S/O Late Kumar Kant Jha Prof. Colony, P.S.-
Nirmali, Via- Darbhanga, Dist.- Supaul
346. Rajesh Kumar S/O Surendra Pd. A/287, A.G. Colony, P.S.- Rajeev
Nagar, Dist.- Patna-25
347. Prem Kumar Choudhary S/O Ram Naresh Choudhary Moh.- Damariya,
P.S.- Gardhanibagh, Dist.- Patna
348. Sanjay Kumar Sahni S/O Ram Chandra Sahni Moh.- Belwaganj, P.S.-
Laheria Sarai, Dist.- Dharbhanga, Bihar
349. Rajeev Ranjan S/O Ram Lakhan Prasad Vill.- Dhanauti, P.S.-
Jehanabad, Dist.- Jehanabad
350. Birendra Kumar S/O Ram Lakhan Thakur Pa(M)-1, D.A.P. Office,
G.P.O. Campus, P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Patna
351. Ajay Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Chodhary Asst. S.P. Office Nawada,
P.O.+P.S.+Dist.- Nawada
352. Rai Birendra S/O Late Nandu Singh Vill.+P.O.- Patiyawan, P.S.-
Shakurabad, Dist.- Jehanabad
353. Abhay Kumar Sharma S/O Nand Kishor Sharma Vill.- Sagrpur, P.S.-
Makhadumpur, Dist.- Jehanabad
354. Pankaj Kumar Das S/O Late Sarb Narayan Lal Das E/2, R.B.I.,
Officer'S Colony, Near Old Water Tower, Kankarbagh, P.S.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 18
Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna
355. Sanjay Kumar S/O Satya Narayan Sharma H/O C.K. Jha, Road No. 2,
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Kali Mandir Road, P.S.- Kankadbagh, Hanuman
Nagar, Dist.- Patna
356. Ram Bilash Mehta S/O Mahadev Mehta At + Vill.- Karjain, P.S.-
Karjain, Dist.- Supaul, Bihar
357. Alok Kumar Sinha S/O Gupteshwar Prasad Nutan Nagar Beldari Tola
Gaya, P.S.- Civil Line Gaya, Dist.- Gaya
358. Rajeev Ranjan S/O Paras Nath Gupta Moh.- Shiv Shakti Colony, P.S.-
Civil Line, Gaya, Dist.- Gaya
359. Dheerj Kumar Gupta S/O Nand Kishor Prasad Moh.- Bramsat Talab
Near Sharvan Sheed, P.S.- Civil Line, Gaya, Dist.- Gaya
360. Santosh Kumar Pathak S/O Manoj Kr. Pathak At - Nawa Garhi
Kharkatta Lane, P.S.- Andar Gaya, Dist.- Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
General Administration, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of General Administration, Govt.
Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission P.O.- Veterinary College, Patna-
14, Through Its Secretary
4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O.- Veterinary
College, Patna-14
5. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O.- Veterinary
College, Patna-14
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5103 of 2013
======================================================
1. Ajay Kumar S/O Ram Laxuman Ojha R/O Village- Guzarwaliya, P.S.-
Majhwaliya, District- West Champaran
2. Rajesh Kumar S/O Kishor Prasad R/O Village- Dharahra, P.S.- Silao,
District-Nalanda
3. Rakesh Kumar Singh S/O Dashrath Singh R/O Village- Motha, P.S.-
Karakat, District- Rohtas
4. Laxman Singh S/O Late Akshaywar Singh R/O Village- Masarh, P.S.-
Udant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
5. Arun Kumar S/O Late Chhedi Prasad R/O New Are Ajakkanpur, Near
Nadwa Plastic Industries, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna
6. Rakesh Kumar S/O Satyanarayan Singh R/O Village- Mujan, P.S.-
Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
7. Piyush Kumar Singh S/O Ajit Narayan Singh R/O Jay Kay Nagar High
School,P.S.- Raniganj, Ditrict- Burdwan (West Bengal)
8. Amit Kumar S/O Nawal Kishor Sinha R/O Post Office Road, Khagaria,
P.S.- Khagaria, District- Khagaria
9. Omneet Kumar S/O Tej Narayan Singh R/O Bourney Asthan, P.S.-
Chautham, District- Khagaria
10. Avinash Kumar S/O Mahendra Bind R/O Village- Mali, P.S.- Karpi,
District- Arwal
11. Prahlad Jha S/O Gopal Jha R/O Village- Sijoulia, P.S.- Phulparas,
District- Madhubani
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 19
12. Sonu Kumar S/O Yogeshwar Mahto R/O Bishaul, P.S.- Harlakhi,
District- Madhubani
13. Rajeev Kumar S/O Shri Jagdish Pd. Singh R/O Laxmipur Babhania,
P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur
14. Amrendra Kumar S/O Mahendra Narayan Singh R/O Laxmipur
Babhania, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur
15. Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra Thakur R/O Jawahar Tola, Infront Of
D.A.V. School, P.S.- Nawada, District- Bhojpur (Ara)
16. Arvind Kumar S/O Sri Ram Sevak Pandit R/O Village- Pihwara, P.S.-
Saharghat, District- Madhubani
17. Anil Kumar Singh S/O Sheo Adhar Singh R/O Village- Dahrak, P.S.-
Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
18. Indra Mani Singh S/O Vijay Singh R/O Jawahar Tola, Infront Of
D.A.V. School, P.S.- Nawada, District- Bhojpur (Ara)
19. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Liltaran Singh R/O Village- Pustak Mahal,
Nawada Chowk, P.S.- Nawada, District- Ara (Bhojpur)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Veterinary
College, Patna-800014
2. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar,
Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
For the Petitioners : Mr. Chitaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saket Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ansul, Adv.
Mr. Javed Aslam, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar GP21
Mr. Rajesh Singh, GP-16
Mrs. Namrata Mishra GP17
Mr. R.K. Verma, SC-27
For the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satyavir Bharti, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv.
For the Private Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 20
(20/08/ 2013)
In all these five writ applications the petitioners have
assailed the result of Graduate Level Combined (Main
Examination) 2010 (hereinafter referred to as „the Main
Examination‟) in respect of Advertisement No. 110/2010 whereby
and whereunder 25792 candidates have been declared successful
by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to
as „the Commission‟) for being considered for their appointment
on 3285 Class-III graduate level posts under the State
Government. By way of consequential reliefs, they have also
prayed for restraining the official respondents either from
proceeding for counseling of aforesaid 25792 successful
candidates or issuing appointment letters to them against 3285
Class-III posts. A further direction has also been sought by them
for commanding the Commission to conduct the Main
Examination afresh on the basis of earlier result of the preliminary
test conducted by the Commission wherein only 16425 candidates
were declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination.
In addition to the aforementioned common prayer in all the writ
applications, a separate prayer has also been made only in
C.W.J.C.No. 3640/2013, which incidentally is the main case
wherein all the pleadings have been filed by all the parties, that
this Court should direct for holding an enquiry by an independent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 21
agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in the
entire selection process undertaken by the Commission in respect
of the aforementioned Advertisement No.110/2010 pertaining to
Graduate Level Combined Competetive Examination.
2. The facts which would be sufficient to be noticed for
disposal of all these writ applications lie in a very narrow
compass. The Commission on 18.6.2010 had issued an
advertisement notifying 1569 vacancies of Graduate Level Post in
various departments of the State Government and the last date for
filing application was 26.7.2010. The Commission on receipt of
3,85,799 applications and after their screening had conducted a
preliminary written test on 18.12.2011 in which 253795
candidates had appeared at various centres all over Bihar. The
result of the aforesaid preliminary Test was published by the
Commission on 12.4.2012 wherein 16425 candidates were
declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the meantime,
the police had registered Economic Offence P.S.Case No. 23/2012
dated 20.10.2012 for offences under sections 420, 468, 472, 120B
of the Indian Penal Code disclosing that the miscreants had
tampered the answer sheets (OMR sheets) after entering in the
office and strong room of the Commission relating to the different
examinations including that of Junior Engineers, Auditors,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 22
Secretariat Assistants (i.e. present selection). In this regard the
petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 have made detailed
averments and have referred to press release dated 21.10.2012
issued by the Chairman of the Commission assuring to cancel the
result of any examination conducted by the Commission if the
allegation of tampering the answer sheets in the aforesaid criminal
case was found to be true. It has however been alleged that the
officials of the Commission including its Chairman did not extend
the necessary co-operation in investigation of the aforementioned
police case, Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23/2012 and only
due to that the police could not properly investigate the
interpolation in the OMR sheets of the present examinations.
4. From the pleadings it is also clear that a batch of
writ applications, namely, C.W.J.C.No. 10268/2012, C.W.J.C.No.
10683/2012, C.W.J.C.No. 12209/2012, C.W.J.C.No. 12506/2012,
C.W.J.C.No. 14078/2012 and C.W.J.C.No. 19678/2012 were filed
for cancellation of the result of the aforesaid preliminary test dated
12.4.2012wherein also a prayer was made for registering a First Information Report in respect of the criminal misconduct committed by the authorities of the Commission in the tampering of answer sheets of the preliminary examination and for its being investigated by the C.B.I. and those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 30.10.2012 without interfering with Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 23 the result of the preliminary test examination and/or giving any direction for lodging of the F.I.R. and the investigation by the C.B.I. as with regard to the aforesaid alleged criminal misconduct committed by the authorities of the Commission.
5. The Commission, however, after disposal of the aforesaid writ applications challeging the result of preliminary test, had issued a revised fresh result of preliminary test on 28.12.2012 declaring 27,289 candidates successful in Graduate Level Preliminary Test for 3285 vacancies in terms of Advertisement No. 110/2010 and had notified the date of 27.1.2013 for holding the Main Examination. The petitioners have also stated that a notice was published by the Commission on 25.1.2013 that the question paper and the model key answer of the said Main Examination would be displayed on the Website of the Commission after 9 P.M. on 29.1.2013 and any objection to the model answer could be submitted by the candidates in respect of any infirmity in the question paper and the model answer by 5 P.M. on 30.1.2013. The Main Examination therefore was held on 27.1.2013 and the Commission after holding the Main Examination in view of the aforesaid notice had invited objection to the model answers published on its Website on 28.1.2013 and after considering all such objections of the examinees, the Commission had declared the impugned final result on 6.2.2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 24 whereby and whereunder 25792 out of 27289 candidates were declared to be successful for being recommended for appointment against 3285 advertised posts.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners while assailing the aforesaid result of the Main Examination in these writ petitions, have raised the following pleas:-
(i) Bihar Staff Selection Commision Rules 2003 and Bihar Staff Selection Commissin Conduct of Examination Rules 2010 framed by the State Government are not only contrary to the provisions of Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act 2002 but they infact do away with the very concept of autonomy as well as power and functions vested in Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the decision of the State Government in its Resolution dated 25.3.2010 authorising the Commission to take assistance from Bihar State Combined Admission Competitive Exmination Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, for conducting the Graduate Level Main Examination in hand and the resultant action of the Commission of surrendering its entire power and function to the Board in respect of conducting the Main Examination as well as evaluation of answer sheets (OMR Sheets) and Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 25 declaration of the impugned result by itself had vitiated the entire process of selection.
(ii) The impugned result of the Main Examination cannot and in fact does not inspire confidence in view of the findings of police which while conducting the investigation of Economic Offence Case No. 23 of 2012 had arrived at a prima-facie conclusion that OMR Sheets of several examinations conducted by the Commission including the present Graduate level Main Examination were tampered and interpolated and in fact when the Commission had also not co-operated with the investigation leading to release of the accused persons on bail by taking benefit of section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the complicity of the officers and employees of the Commission in tampering the answer sheets of the present Main Examination can not be ruled out.
(iii) The Commission having conducted the preliminary test for 1569 advertised posts could not expanded the zone of consideration by declaring the result of 27289 candidates as successful for their appearing in the Main Examination for 3285 posts specially when in the advertisement no. 110/2010 there was a clear stipulation that candidates only upto five Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 26 times of the total vacancies could be screened in preliminary test for appearing in the Main Examination.
(iv) There being a large number of defective questions and wrong answers in the multiple choice objective test conducted by the Commission in the Main Examination has vitiated the entire result specially when there was a provision for negative marking for the wrong answers.
(v) The failure on the part of the Commission to declare the result of Main Examination post wise and category wise has even otherwise made the impugned result vulnerable inasmuch as it is contrary to the spirit of the terms and conditions of advertisement no. 110 of 2010.
7. Per Contra, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission as with regard to the aforesaid five pleas, has submitted that though it is true that when the advertisement was issued by the Commission on 18.6.2010 only 1569 vacancies were included but then in the advertisement itself it was clearly mentioned that such vacancies could be varied, either increased or decreased, in view of any subsequent requisition made by the State Government, prior to holding of the Main Examination. In this regard he has also Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 27 invited attention of this Court towards the notice issued by the Commission on 7.5.2012 wherein all the candidates much before holding the Main Examination on 27.1.2013 had been informed that the number of vacancies had been increased from 1569 to 3285 and as such no illegality can be said to have been committed in declaration of the impugned result on this score.
8. As with regard to increase in number of candidates declared successful in the preliminary test from 16425 approximately to 27289 it has been explained by Mr. Singh that the same was done not only on account of increase of number of posts from 1569 to 3285 but also on account of certain oral observations made by this Court in course of hearing of aforesaid batch of writ petitions filed against the result of preliminary test. He has further submitted that in any event the petitioners being successful candidates of such preliminary test examination, who had also appeared in the Main Examination, cannot be permitted to challenge the result of the preliminary test on this score especially when the validity of the same was upheld by this Court in the judgment dated 30.10.2012 in C.W.C.J.No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases.
9. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the criticism of the petitioners with regard to the defect in question and answers also have no basis, inasmuch as not only the Commission had Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 28 maintained a complete transparancy in this regard but had also invited objection before declaration of result by publishing the question and the model answer on its Website and also by taking into into consideration the objections of the candidates by referring them to a set of experts. In this regard he has referred to the pleadings in the counter affidavit showing that based on such opinion of the experts changes were made in answers of 13 out 150 questions and only on the basis of such revised model key answer the evaluation of OMR answer sheets of all the candidates including the petitioners were made leading to the declaration of the impugned result by the Commission.
10. In the next limb of submission Mr. Singh had also explained that the Commission had only taken assistance of a governmental agency namely the Board because such agency had not only the infrastructure and manpower but had also vast experience of conducting open competitive examination for admission in the Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges and other technical institutions. In this regard he had also referred to the pleadings to show that when the Commission was facing an uphill task of evaluating the answer sheets of more than two and half lacs candidates appearing in the preliminary test and again around 27000 candidates in the Main Examination, its taking assistance from the Board, an expert agency cannot be faulted Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 29 either on fact or in law specially when it had been duly authorised and permitted by the State Government.
11. Proceeding further learned Senior Counsel for the Commission on the basis of materials on record had sought to impress that the criminal case and the findings of the police in Economic Offence P.S.Case No. 23/2012 in no way would vitiate the impugned result of the Main Examination inasmuch as the answer sheets i.e. OMR sheets, were already entrusted to the Board, the specialized agency, and were never kept in the strong room in the office of the Commission about whom only the police in course of investigation had collected suspicious circumstances leading to its prima facie conclusion of interpolation of answer sheet (OMR sheets) that too in relation to some other competitive examinations.
12. Finally, Mr. Singh had also explained that the consolidated result of 25792 candidates without specifying category and posts in no way could be held to be had because all the 3285 posts were graduate level posts on which final recommendation could be made only after allowing the successful candidates to exercise their option based on merit cum choice in the process of counselling.
13. Before this Court would go to examine aforesaid rival submissions, it would be significant to note here that a Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 30 number of intervention applications were filed by the successful candidates whose impugned results were published on 6.2.2013 and have been assailed in these writ petitions. As such intervention applications were allowed by this Court and they have been impleaded as Respondents 9 to 30 in C.W.J.C. No. 3640 of 2013 keeping in view that since the successful candidates could be adversely affected by the out come of these writ petitions, some of them should also be heard in the representative capacity in view law laiddown by the Apex Court in the cases of Col. D.D. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1983(2) SCC 235, B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1985 (Suppl) SSC 432 and Union of India Vs. M.P. Singh reported in 1990 Suppl. SCC 701. In these cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that if a number of persons are likely to be affected by an order which may may be passed in a petition, it is not necessary that all of them must be joined as a party respondent and it would be sufficient if some of them are only joined as a representative of the entire group, if the interest of the persons who are not before the court and not joined as a party are identical, with those who are before court and can well be representated by the persons joined as party.
14. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel, having appeared on behalf of some of such intervenor Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 31 Respondents 9 to 30 has not only referred to and relied on the counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavit filed by them but has also made his submissions on all the aforesaid issues involved in this case. According to Mr. Singh there was no anomaly of any nature whatsoever so as to wholly vitiate the result of the Main Examination and this Court should therefore dismiss all these writ applications.
15. The first plea on which much stress was given by Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing in C.W.J.C.No. 5103/2013, would necessariy involve a brief review of the power and function of the Commission. It is not in doubt that by an Act of Legislature, namely, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act the Commission was constituted for conducting the selection on Class III posts. Under Section 3 of teh Act there is a provision for constitution of the Commission and Section 4 of teh Act lays down the tenure of the Chairman and the Members of the Commission. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Commission to make recommendation for appointment of Class III post in the offices of the State Government and the Regional Offices as against all the services of general, technical and non-technical cadres. Section 6 of the Act provides for appointment and the terms and conditions of the officers and employee of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 32 Commission as prescribed under the Rules. Section 7 of the Act fixes the Headquarter of the Commission at Patna and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State Government to be the administrative department of the Commission. Section 8 of the Act empowers the Commission to lay down the procedure of selection for different services/ post with the prior approval of the State Government. Under section 9 of the Act the Chairman of the Commission has been vested with the administrative and financial powers and he has also been authorized to entrust the duty of the Examination Controller to one of the Member while work of the Administrative Branch to other Member. Section 10 of the Act relates to transfer of pending selection from the Bihar Public Service Commission authorizing the Commission to take up such selection where advertisements were not issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the date of the Act coming into force i.e. 24th April, 2002. Under section 11 of the Act the entire financial expenditure in the functioning of the office and working of the Commission is to be borne by the State Government and the Commission has also been authorized to receive fees for conduction selection/ examination from the candidates which has to be however deposited in the Treasury of the State Government. Section 12 of the Act vests power of framing Rules/ Regulation for giving effect to the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 33 provisions of the Act in the State Govenrment and the Commission with the prior approval of the State Government has also been delegated the power for framing Rules for publication of advertisement, conducting of the written examination, publication of the result and conducting of interview/ viva voce etc.
16. Thus, a bare reading of the aforementioned provisions of the Act bringing the Commission into existence for making recommendation on Class III post in the offices of the State Government and its Regional offices will leave nothing for speculation that the Commission in reality is an adjunct of the State Government and is under full direct control of the State Government. The status of the Commission, therefore, cannot be one as has been in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission in terms of Articles 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India. In nut shell it is the State Government which has, instead of making its own selection for appointment on Class III post in the offices of the State Government and its Regional (field) offices, created a body i.e. the Commission, which of course has been authorized to conduct selection but again totally under control of the State Government. As a matter of fact when the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforks had framed Rules on 31st May, 2003 laying down the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Rules, and had specified the powers and Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 34 function of the Commission vide Schedule II and those of the Chairman of the Commission vide Schedule III, there would not be much left out for this Court to hold that the Commission in its functioning is in complete grip of the State Government.
17. Additionally, this Court would also find that when the State Government in exercise of his power under section 12(1) of 2002 Act had also framed Rules, namely, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Conduct Examination Rules, 2010, laying down manner of holding of selection including three examinations ordinarily every year separately for the post of Matriculation level, Intermediate level and Graduation level and has also specified such posts vide Schedule I and II and has further prescribed the norms of examination to be conducted in two stages, namely, preliminary examination and Main Examination as also the subjects of both preliminary and Main Examination, no such autonomy was ever vested in the Commission which would put it at par with the Bihar Public Service Commission as envisaged under Article 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India. In fact the association of the Department of General Administration in preparation of the draft merit list as also final recommendation to be sent to the concerned department would by itself be sufficient to indicate the deep and pervasive control of the State Government on the Commission, especially when in Rule 16 of 2010 Rules it Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 35 has also been laid down that the Commission shall have liberty to take its decision on the standard and procedure of examination keeping in view the norms laid down under 2010 Rules.
18. Thus, in view of the provisions made in 2002 Act, followed by the Rules framed by the State Government in the year 2003 and 2010 this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the resolution issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 25.3.2010 authorizing the Commission to take help and assistance of Bihar Rajya Sanyukta Pravesh Pratiyogita Pariksha Parishad (Bihar State Combined Admission Competitive Examination Board) for conducting various examination and selection by the Commission cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act as would be more clear from reading of the resolution itself issued by the State Government on 25.3.2010 quoted hereinbelow:
la[;k&7@p0 i0 208@98&dk0 2742@ fcgkj ljdkj dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx AAladYiAA fn0 25-3-10 fo"k;%& fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk yh tkuh okyh izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kkvksa ds lapkyu gsrq fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos'k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn dk lg;ksx fy, tkus ds laca/k esA Lukrd @bUVj@eSfVzd Lrj ds vjktif=r inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ijh{kk lapkyu fu;eokyh 2010 dk xBu dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la0&2741 fnuakd& 25-03-2010 }kjk fd;k x;k gSA blh dze esa jkT; ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx lacaf/kr ijh{kkvksa ds lapkyu ds fy, vko';drkuqlkj fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos'k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn dk Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 36 lg;ksx ys ldsxs] ftlds fy, fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos'k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn iVuk dks izkf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k & vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa tulk/kkj.k ds lwpukFkZ izdkf'kr fd;k tk,A 2- ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi fd izfrfyfi fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx@fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos'k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn] iVuk@lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k ,oa vU; lHkh lacaf/krksa dks lwpuk ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Hkst nh tk,A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] g0@& 25@3@2010 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA Kkikad&7@p0 i0&208@98@2742 @ iVuk] fnukad 25-03-10 izfrfyfi& v/kh{kd] jktdh; eqnz.kky;] xqytkj ckx] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vkxkeh vlk/kkj.k vad esa izdk'kkukFkZ vxzlfjrA muls vuqjks/k gS fd fcgkj jkti= dh 50 eqfnzr izfr;ka bl foHkkx dk miyC/k djk;h tk;A g0@& 25@3@2010 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA Kkikad&7@p0 i0&208@98@2742 @ iVuk] fnukad 25-03-10 izfrfyfi& eq[;ea=h lfpoky;@lfpo] fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ks@lfpo] fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos'k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn@lfpo] fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVuk ,oa iz/kku lfpo] dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds iz/kku vkIr lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"krA g0@& 25@3@2010 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA
19. Having regard to the aforementioned statutory provision of 2002 Act and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, now being renamed as Department of General Administration, being the controlling administrative department of the Commission, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Sinha that the Conduct of Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 37 Examination Rules 2010 framed by the State Government encroaches upon the power and autonomy of the Commission, inasmuch as this Court does not find anything from 2002 Act which can be said to be contrary to the provision of 2003 Rules or 2010 Rules.
20. The reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A. P. Public Service Commission, Hyderbad & Anr. Vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors. reported in 1990(2)SCC 669 is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, what was held therein in relation to Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules pertainig to the qualification of age was that the word 'selection' used therein cannot be understood in a narrower sense of final act of selecting the candidate with preparation of list for appointment. The Apex Court in that context had only held as follows:-
"If the word 'selection' is understood in a sense meaning thereby only the final act of selecting candidates with preparation of the list for appointment, then the conclusion of the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But round phrases cannot give square answers. Before accepting that meaning, we must see the consequences, anomalies and uncertainties that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Indeed, it consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidaes for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 38 Procedure of the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in teh process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise appliations. It would be, therefore, unresonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of the select list. Nothing, so bad would have been intended by the rule making authority."
It is thus clear that actually the word 'selection' used in the aforementioned Rules which has been explained by the Apex Court in the judgment of B. Sarat Chandra (supra) and will have no relevance in the facts of this case.
21. That apart the submission of Mr. Sinha as with regard to the Commission abdicating its functioning on account of 'assistance' obtained from the Board has already been considered above and found to be permissible under the Act and the Rules and therefore, if the services of the Board were utilized for either storing of the answer sheets or its evaluation by the computers of the Board through the personnel of the board that will make no difference so far it relates to the functioning of the Commission in respect of conducting the entire selection process. Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 39
22. The next submission of Mr. Sinha that in the name of assistance (Sahyog) the Commission could not have entrusted the entire work of holding the Main Examination right from setting of the question to the evaluation of answer sheet also has to be also understood in the context that the Board is conducting such examination on a mass scale for entrance in the Engineering/ Medical Colleges all over Bihar and has got infrastructure for conducting of the examination and publishing the result. Thus, if the Government in exercise of its power under 2010 Rules has taken a conscious decision by its resolution dated 25.3.2010 that the Commission can take assistance of the Board in conducting the examination and publishing the result no valid objection can be raised by the petitioners- candidates to the same. In fact from the counter affidavit filed by the Commission in C.W.J.C.No. 3740/2013 it is more than clear that the question booklet as also model key answer for holding the examination in question was prepared by the Commission from its own sources and after the examinations were conducted the OMR answer sheets were only evaluated with the help of the computers installed in the office of the Board. The evaluation of OMR sheet is a purely a mechanical exercise in which the answer sheets are to be fed into the computers and they get automatically evaluated on the basis of programmed model key correct answers. This part of exercise by Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 40 the Board in rendering assistance to the Commission either in evaluation of the answer books of the preliminary test in which around 2.5 lacs candidates had appeared or even in the Main Examination again by evaluation of OMR sheets was well within the delegated power to the Commission by the State Government in seeking assistance of the Board vide aforementioned resolution dated 25.3.2010.
23. Thus, the Main Examination conducted by the Commission in the present case cannot be said to be vitiated only because the assitance of the Board was obtained in storage or evaluation of the answer sheets or other allied works relating to declaration of the impugned result.
24. Once this Court, therefore, would hold that the assistance of the Board could have been very well taken by the Commission in holding such examination, the attack of Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in C.W.J.C.No. 3640/2013, that the result of the Main Examination was vitiated on account of mal-practice committed in the strong room of the Commission has to be also automatically rejected, inasmuch as it has come on record that after conducting of the Main Examination on 27.1.2013 the OMR answer sheets were handed over by the officials of the Commission to the Board for its evaluation and thus when they were not even kept in the strong Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 41 room of the Commission there would be also no question of their interpolated in the office of the Commission.
25. In that view of the matter, the result of the Main Examination of the Graduate level post cannot be said to be vitiated due to allweged mal-practice and interpolation in OMR answer sheets, especially when this Court on the basis of the affidavit filed by the I.G., Economic Offences, is satisfied that no meterial has been collected till date in the pending Economic Offence Case No. 23/2012 to establish any mal-practice relating to OMR sheets of the Main Examination. In this regard this Court had made a specific query from the IG, Economic Offences, vide its order dated 26.2.2013 to file a clear affidavit as to whether Economic Offence Case No. 23/2012 also in any way involved relating to any mal-practice in the Graduate Level Examination Test, 2010 conducted by the Commission and therefore it would be also relevant and useful to quote paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 of the counter affidavit of I.G. Vigilance which reads as follows:-
"12. That during the course of investigation of Economic Offences P.S.Case No. 23/2012, it was found that the answer sheets of the two examination namely 1. Junior Engineer Examination held on 30.9.12 and 2. Auditor Examination held on 7.10.12, were kept in the separate strong room of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetenary College Campus, Patna.
13. That it was revealed by the officers of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, that answer sheets of the Junior Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 42 Engineer Examination were already evaluated, regarding Auditor Examination the evaluation process had not yet started. On inspection with naked eye, it appeared that the seal of the door was tempered with, the seals (metal seal and paper seal) of the strong rooms were lifted and sent for expert‟s opinion to find out whether any tempering has been done with the seals.
18. That on the basis of investigation of Economic P.S.Case No. 23/2012, the following facts would clear- A. That there are evidences showing that the strong room in which the original OMR answer sheets of the Auditor Examination (held on 7.10.12) were kept, was broken into before the process of the evaluation started. B. Original OMR answer sheets (as seen from scanned CD) of suspected examinees of Junior Engineer Examination held on 30.9.12, bore more blackened circles than the carbon copy of OMR answer sheets of candidates, which was seized by the police from the possession of accused. C. Answer sheets other than Auditor Examination and junior Engineer Examinatin were not recovered or seized during investigation of Economic Offences P.S.Case No. 23/12."
26. The aforesaid uncontroverted statements of the I.G. Economic Offences by themselves would go to show that the criminal case, Economic Offence P.S.Case No. 23/2012 did not relate to the present Main Examination which in fact was held on 27.1.2013 much after registration of Economic Offences P.S.Case No. 23/2012. It is true that in paragraph 35 of the same counter affidavit it has been stated that another Economic Offence P.S.Case No. 3/2013 relating to Graduate Level Combined Main Examination, 2010 is said to have been registered but in paragraph Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 43 39 of the counter affidavit it has been again clearly mentioned that three named F.I.R. accused in their confession before the police had stated that the question paper of the Graduate Level Main Examination, 2010 could not be obtained by them though they had admitted their involvement in tampering of answer sheets the Medical Entrance Examination.
27. In view of the aforesaid authentic materials on record brought by the IG, Economic Offences, this Court will also have no difficulty in holding that till date there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which it can be said that OMR sheets of the present Graduate Level Main Examination conducted by the Commission were in any way also changed or interpolated. In this regard the Commission also in paragraph 30 of the second supplementary counter affidavit in C.W.J.C.No. 3640/2013 has categorically denied any tampering or changing of the answer sheets of the Main Examination in the following words:
"30. That in so far as the allegation of malafide in view of the pending criminal case is concerned, it is stated that the aforesaid criminal case and the allegations made therein has no nexus/ connection with etierh the P.T. examination conducted on 18.12.2011 or the Mains examination conducted on 27.1.2013 and its evaluation made thereafter inasmuch as the raid by S.T.F. leading to registration of Economic Offences P.S.Case No. 23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012 was in relation to the Auditors Examination conducted by the Commission and the alleged place of Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 44 occurrence was at the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Veterinary College Campus where the strong room of the Commission at the aforesaid place was sought to be illegally opened in order to tamper with the OMR sheets kept in the strong room of the Commission whereas the present Graduate Level examination was conducted by B.C.E.C.E. Board except the preparation of the question booklet. Even the OMR sheets of the P.T. examination were kept in the strong room of the B.C.E.C.E. Board situated at IAS Bhawan, Patna which admittedly had not been interfered or tampered with in any manner. Besides the said allegations are mere bald statements made by the writ petitioners having no basis and has already been rejected by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 30.10.2013 passed in CWJC No. 10268 of 2012 and analogous cases. Apart from the above, the writ petitioners having been declared successful in the P.T. examination cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the validity of the results of the P.T. examination which even otherwise has not been impugned in the present writ application."
28. In view of above, this Court will also have no difficulty in holding that the answer sheets of the present Main Examination Graduate Level Examination was not tampered so as to vitiate the entire impugned result.
29. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 3640 of 2013 and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 had however concentrated in their submissions on yet another aspect that the Commission having expanded the zone of consideration beyond five times as stipulated in the advertisement has Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 45 committed such an error that now the whole Main Examination including the impugned result has become vitiated. In this regard, it has been explained by them that even if the number of vacancy which was increased from 1569 to 3285 from the stage of holding of preliminary test to Main Examination, the total number of candidates qualifying in the preliminary test in view of the specific terms set out in the advertisement limiting it to five times of total posts could not have exceeded beyond 16425 but the Commission, having declared 27289 candidates to be successful in the preliminary test who were allowed to appear in the Main Examination has acted contrary to the terms of advertisement which in turn has vitiated the entire result of the Main Examination wherein 25792 candidates have been declared successful for 3285 posts.
30. There would be no difficulty for this Court in rejecting the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as with regard to their grievance of increase in number of posts from 1569 to 3285. It is true that in the advertisement dated 18.6.2010 the breakup of 1569 post was given but in the same advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the number of vacancies were subject to increase/ decrease and in this regard the terms and conditions of the advertisement would by itself be a complete answer to the submission of the learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 46 petitioners which reads as follows:
** fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iks0&osVujh dkWyst] iVuk&14 Lukrd Lrjh; izFke izkjafHkd la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk&2010 foKkiu la[;k&110@2010 vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk 26-07-2010 dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k&7@p0i0&208@98dk0@2741 fnukad 25-03-2010 }kjk Lukkrd Lrjh; izFke la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk&2010 esa vk;ksftr djus gsrq lalqfpr dh xbZ lgefr ds dze esa jkT; ljdkj dh fofHkUu lsokvks@ a laoxksaZ@inksa ds fy, la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls dh tkus okyh fu;qfDr gsrq lacaf/kr foHkkxksa }kjk lalqfpr fjfDr;ksa ds fo:n~/k Hkkjrh; ukxfjdksa ls fofgr izi= esa izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSa mEehnokj vgZrk vuqlkj fuEukafdr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk rFkk fu/kkZfjr vk;q lhek ds vUrxZr] vkosnu i= lefiZr djsx a sA lacaf/kr foHkkxks ls izkIr v|ru fjfDr;ka fuEuor gSA izFke Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk&2010 gsrq fofHkUu inksa dk izkIr vf/k;kpuk ds vuqlkj foHkkxokj fooj.kh dze foHkkx dk in dk uke in osrueku U;wure vkj{k.kokj inksa dh fLFkfr l0 uke dksM 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vuq0 vuq0 vR;Ur fiNM+k fi0oxZ lkekU; dqy tkfr tu0 fi0oxZ0 oxZ dh tkfr efgyk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 lkekU; lfpoky; 01 is0csM a 9300& Lukkrd 166 10 186 124 31 517 1034 iz'kklu lgk;d lao xZ 34800$xsM is foHkkx fcgkj jkT; Lrjh; 4600 2 m|ksx foHkkx m|ksx foLrkj 02 is0csM 9300& okf.kT;@vFkZ 13 01 14 10 02 41 81 fcgkj inkf/kdkjh 34800++ $xsM '[email protected] laoxZ jkT; is0 4200@lkaf[;dh esa Lrjh; ¼5000&8000 Lukrd iwjkuk½ U;wure izkIrkad 45% 3 m|ksx foHkkx duh; 03 is0caM 9300& okf.kT;@vFkZ 03 & 04 02 01 10 20 fcgkj lkaf[;dh 34800+$ xsM '[email protected] lgk;d] is04200 @lkaf[;dh esa laoxZ jkT; ¼5000&8000iw Lukrd Lrjh; jkuk½ U;wure izkIrkad 45% 4 [kk| ,oa vkiwfrZ 04 5000&8000 Lukrd 41 07 47 30 16 125 266 miHkksDrk fujh{kd] ¼viqujhf{kr½ laj{k.k foHkkx laoxZ jkT;
fcgkj Lrjh;
5 vuq0 tkfr iz[k.M vuq0 05 is0csM 9300& dyk@foKku 25 01 25 18 04 70 143
,oa vuq0 tkfr ,oa 34800$xsM @okf.kT; esa
tutkfr vuq0 is0 4200 Lukrd fMxzh
dY;k.k tutkfr
foHkkx fcgkj dY;k.k
inkf/kdkjh
laoxZ jkT;
Lrjh;
6 Je lalk/ku Je dY;k.k 06 is0csM a & AA& Lukrd 01 01 & 01 & 02 05
foHkkx fcgkj inkf/kdkjh 9300&34800
¼i;Zos{kdh;½ $xzsM is0
laoxZ jkT; 4200
Lrjh;
7 Je lalk/ku efgyk lekt 07 is0 csM& Lukrd 04 01 02 & 01 05 13
foHkkx] fcgkj vk;ksftdk 5200&
¼dsoy 20200$xsM
efgykvksa ds is02400
fy;s½ laoxZ
jkT; Lrjh;
8 Je lalk/ku lkaf[;dh 08 is0csM&5200 xf.kr@ 01 01 02 02 & 01 07
foHkkx fcgkj lax.kd laoxZ @20200 xsM lkaf[;dh@v
jkT; Lrjh; is0 1900 FkZ'kkL= fo"k;
esa Lukrd
;ksx& 254 22 280 187 55 771 1569
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 47
mi;qZDr fjfDr;ka vkSicaf/kd gS] tks ?kV&c<+ ldrh gSA eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ foHkkxksa ls izkIr gksusokyh vU; inksa dks Hkh bl ijh{kk esa 'kkfey fd;k tk ldsxk ftldh lwpuk eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu i= izkIr djus ds iwoZ izdkf'kr dh tk,xhA** (underlining for emphasis)
31. From the underlined portion of the aforementioned extract of the advertisement it is absolutely clear that the Commission had reserved the right of either increasing or decreasing the number of posts and in this regard had also clarified that if further vacancies were requisitioned by the Department prior to holding of the Main Examination they could be included for selection in terms of the advertisement dated 18.6.2010.
32. As a matter of fact the Commission had again issued a fresh Corrigendum on 7.5.2012 and had notified the increase of vacancy much before holding of the Main Examination, wherein it was stated as follows:
fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx iks0&osVujh dkWyts iVuk&14 foKkiu la[;k&110@2010 dh (P.T.) ijh{kk esa mRrhZ.k ?kkf"kr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s vko';d lwpuk Kki la[;k&2057@vk0 iVuk] fnukad 07-05-2012 Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izkjfEHkd izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk 2010] foKkiu la[;k 110@2010 ds vkyksd esa vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 18-12-2011 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ FkhA of.kZr foKkiu esa fjfDr;ksa dh dqy la[;k 1569 n'kkZbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk foKkiu esa ;g Hkh vafdr Fkk fd inksa dh fjfDr ?kV&c<+ ldrh gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k Fkk fd vU; foHkkxksa ls fjfDr;ka izkIr gksus ij mls Hkh 'kkfey fd;k tk ldsxkA fofHkUu foHkkxksa ls fofHkUu lsokvks@ a laoxksZa ds fy, vkSj fjfDr;ka vk;ksx dks izkIr gqbZ gS] ftls iwoZ dh fjfDr;ksa ds lkFk tksM+dj Lukrd Lrjh; (P.T.) ijh{kk dk ijh{kkQy vk;ksx }kjk izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj ds vkj{k.k fu;eksa ds vuqlkj izkIr dksfVokj fjfDr;ksa dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS&
(i) vukjf{kr&1571 (ii) vuqlqfpr tkfr&521 (iii) vuqlwfpr tutkfr&98 (iv) vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ&615 (v) fiNM+k oxZ&351 (vi) fiNM+s oxZ dh efgyk,a&129] dqy fjfDr;ka&3285 2- mi;qZDr fjfDr;ksa ds vkyksd esa Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izkjfEHkd ijh{kk&2010 dk ijh{kkQy vk;ksx }kjk izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh foLr`r lwpuk vk;ksx ds cscokbZV http:/bssc.bih.nic.in ij miyC/k gSA 3- Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izkjfEHkd izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk gsrq izdkf'kr foKkiu la[;k&110@2010 dh dafMdk&3 esa izkjfEHkd ijh{kk esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk eq[;Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 48
ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu djus rFkk miyC/k inksa ds fjfDr;ksa ds vkyksd esa p;u gsrq izkFkfedrk,a vk;ksx dks miyC/k djk;k tkuk vko';d gSA foHkkxokj inksa dh fjfDr;ka vuqyXud ^^d* esa gS] tks vk;ksx ds csolkbZV ij miyC/k gSA 4- eq[; ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu&lg&izkFkfedrk;sa vk;ksx ds csclkbZV ds ek/;e ls vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkWuykbZu izkIr fd;k tkuk gSA izkjafHkd ijh{kk esa lQy vH;FkhZ vk;ksx ds csclkbZV http:/bssc.bih.nic.in ij online vkosnu&lg&izkFkfedrk izi= Hkjsx a s ,oa mldh ,d izfr csolkbZV ls MkmuyksM djsxa s] fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij gLrk{kj vafdr djsxs vkSj vuqyXud&^[k* esa of.kZr dkxtkr dh Lo&vfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr ds lkFk vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk 08-06-2012 dh la/;k 05-00 cts rd fuf'pr :i ls tek dj izkfIr jlhn izkIr dj ysxsA KkrO; gks fd mDr vafdr izkFkfedrk vafre ,oa vifjorZuh; gksxahA 5- vuqyXud&6[k* ftlesa vkosnu&lg&izkFkfedrk izi= ds lkFk tek fd;s tkusokyh dkxtkr dh lwph vafdr gS] vk;ksx ds csolkbZV ij miyC/k gSA 6- foKkiu la[;k&110@2010] Lukkrd Lrjh; la;qDr eq[; ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu&lg&izkFkfedrk izi= vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa gkFkksa gkFk tek fd;s tkus dh vafre frfFk 08-06-2012 la/;k 05-00 cts fu/kkZfjr gSA ml frfFk ds i'pkr~ fdlh vH;FkhZ ls dksbZ vuqjks/k i=@dkxtkr vk;ksx }kjk Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk;sxk rFkk blds fy;s vH;FkhZ gh Lo;a ftEesokj gksx a sA 7- foKkiu la[;k&110@2010 ds eq[; ijh{kk gsrq ijh{kk ds dqy i=ks]a vadksa ,oa ikB~;dzeksa dh foLr`r tkudkjh of.kZr foKkiu dh dafMdk&12&14 esa vafdr gS ] ftls eq[; ijh{kk ds vH;FkhZ /;ku ls ns[k ysxasA 8- mi;qZDr ds vfrfjDr foKkiu la[;k&110@2010 ,oa mlds dze esa izdkf'kr 'kqf} i= dh vU; lHkh 'krsaZ ;Fkkor jgsx a sA lfpo fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVukA** (underlining for emphasis)
33. This Court, therefore, would find nothing wrong in increase of number of posts and the selection made in respect of them. Law in this regard is also well settled that while future vacancies may not be included in a selection process but anticipated vacancies can very well be included. In the present case in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that the number of vacancies could be increased before holding of the Main Examination and in fact before forms in the Main Examination were filled up by the candidates including the petitioners declared successful in Preliminary Test, the number of vacancies were increased and notified by the Commission. This procedure of Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 49 including the anticipated vacancies has been invariably approved by the Apex Court. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.Laxshmi v. State of Kerala & ors., reported in (2012)4 SCC 115 and in the case of Arup Das & ors. v. State of Assam & ors., reported in (2012)5 SCC 559.
34. Coming to the next aspect as with regard to increase in number of candidates allowed to appear in the Main Examination this Court would again find no merit in the same both on account of facts pleaded by the Commission as also no prejudice caused to the petitioners. It has to be kept in mind that all the petitioners in these cases are successful candidates of the preliminary test and if they have appeared in the Main Examination without any demur or protest as with regard to increase in number of candidates from 16497 to 27289, they cannot now after becoming unsuccessful raise a grievance on this score.
35. It is true that that the plea of the respondent Commission that such increase in number of candidates declared successful in the preliminary test was in accordance with the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases is not borne out from the judgment dated 30.10.2012 but from detailed account of the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases given by the respondents in their counter Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 50 affidavit and duly supported by the official records including the files of the Commission it would become clear that in course of hearing of the aforesaid batch cases assailing the result of the preliminary test dated 12.4.2012 declaring 16497 candidates as successful it became visible that on account of wrong questions and wrong answers and in fact some of the question being also out of syllabus the Commission had taken a decision of deleting Question No.90 as also giving marks to all the candidates for question nos. 141, 142 and 143 and correcting the answers for question nos. 1, 80, 89, 93 and 130 due to which the result of 915 candidates already declared successful in the lot of 16497 was going to be adversely affected.
36. It also transpires from the notings in the file that certain oral observations were made by this Court in course of hearing of batch of the aforesaid writ petitions that the result of those 915 candidates already declared successful in the result of preliminary test should not be disturbed in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2012(1) PLJR 542. Thus, the action of the Commission while saving the result of those 915 candidates in the preliminary test declared on 12.4.2012 had actually led to inclusion of more candidates who had obtained same cut-off marks as by those 915 candidates and it was in that view of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 51 matter that the Commission had revised the result of the preliminary test increasing from 16497 to 27289 candidates specially when number of posts were also increased from 1569 to 3285 only after declaration of preliminary test. In this regard the stand of the Commission in paragraphs no. 20 to 27 of the counter affidavit being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:-
"20. That several writ petitions, i.e. C.W.J.C.No. 10268/12, 14078/12, 10683/12, 12209/12. 12506/12 and 19678/12 were filed challenging the result of the PT published on 12.4.12 and at the same time various representations were received by the Commission with regard to wrong questions, wrong answers and out of syllabus questions, the same has elaborately been referred to ast paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the writ application.
21. That in all fairness, the Commission based on the representation of the candidates and the assertions made in the writ petitions filed by Subhash Paswan and others in this regard, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Expert teachers of all subjects to re-evaluate the questions and Modal answer of the Examination. It may be pointed out that the Expert Committee constituted by B.C.E.C.E. on the request of the Commission.
22. That the Committee of Expert reviewed all the questions and determined their answers. While doing so, they considered each and every suggestion given by the writ petitioners as also suggestions of the candidates who had filed representation in the Commission.
23. That the Commission vide its decision dated 25.7.2012 deliberated on the report of the Expert Committee and decided to declare and publish fresh results for the PT examination by deleting Q.No. 90, giving marks to all the candidates for Q.No. 141, 142 and 143 and correcting the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 52 answers for Q.No. 1, 80, 89, 93 and 130 for which results had already been declared by the Commission on 12.4.2012. However, upon re-evaluation of the answers, 915 candidates who were earlier declared successful became unsuccessful and would be outsted and 1411 candidates who were not earlier selected would be declared successful. The aforsaid facts were brought to the knoweldge of the Hon‟ble High Court in the pending writ petitions by way of filing of the counter affidavit.
24. That the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and dismissed by a common order dated 30.10.12 delivered in Court upholding the stand of the Commission to publish the revised result on the basis of the Expert Committee‟s report. While dismissing the writ petition, the Hon‟ble Court in the presence of counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No. 10268 of 2012 and other analogous cases in the light of earlier directions passed by a Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012(1) PLJR 542 wherein the facts and circumstances were identical to ther present case and related to the P.T. Examination conducted by the B.P.S.C. for the 52nd to 55th batch, observed and directed the counsel for the Commission that 915 candidates earlier declared successful shall not be ousted. It may be relevant to state herein that as per the Rules of B.P.S.C., 10 times the available vacancies are admitted for the Main Examination.
25. That accordingly, the counsel appearing for the Commission before the learned Single Judge intimated the Commission by his letter dated 30.9.2012 about the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by a bench of this Hon‟ble Court as well as the observation and direction of the learned Single Judge that 915 candidates who would otherwise be ousted in view of the revised results are to be retained.
26. That the Commission as a matter of abundant precaution in view of the delay in obtaining certified copy of the order Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 53 sought opinion from the State Government as to whether 915 candidates who would be ousted can be included for the Mains Examination. The General Administrative Department referred the matter to the Law Department for opinion which referred the matter for opinion of the Advocate General, Bihar. The office of the Advocate General opined that 915 unsuccessful candidates can be included and the cut off has to be worked out in such a manner that all those candidates who got the cut off within last among those 915 should also be included. Reference was made to the order passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C.No. 13022 of 2011) as a precedent. The Commission crave leave of this Hon‟ble Court to produce the relevant files at the time of hearing of this application in support of its pleadings.
27. That as such the Commission in the light of observation and direction of the Hon‟ble Court as communicated by its counsel and the opinion of the office of the Adovcate General, declared the revised P.T. result on 28.12.2012 admitting all those candidates securing marks equivalent to the last of these 915 candidates were included in the list of successful candidates of the PT and as such, a total of 27289 candidates were declared successful in the PT and date of the Mains Examination was notified to be held on 27.1.2013. Thus, approximately one month time was granted before the Mains examination and the candidates were also notified about the final vacancies of 3285 before the Mains Examination. The said fact has been admitted in paragraph 12 of C.W.J.C.No. 3640 of 2013."
37. It has to be noted that the aforesaid stand taken by the Commission stands also fully supported from their official records and the files wherein on the basis of oral observation of this Court in course of hearing of the writ petitions assailing the result of preliminary test, the Commission in order to retain those Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 54 915 candidates, who otherwise on the basis of re-evaluation and corrected model answers could have been disqualified from apeparing in the Main Examination, had reduced the cut-off leading to declaration of 27289 candidates as successful in the preliminary test.
38. There is one more aspect to the matter which would stop the petitioners from raising their challenge with regard to increase in number of successful candidates in the preliminary test inasmuch as not only some of the petitioners in these writ petitions were also the petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C.No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases but they were also declared successful in the preliminary test only because of lowering the minimum cut off marks brought down for retaining those 915 candidates who had earlier been declared successful in the result of preliminary test but were later on found to be disqualified due to deletion of questions and/or correcting the model answers as explained above.
39. The very fact that none of the petitioners of those cases, who are also petitioners in these cases, have controverted the aforementioned statements made by the Commission in the counter affidavit disclosing the reason of oral observations of this Court for increase in number of successful candidates from 16497 to 27289 will actually clinch this issue in favour of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 55 Commission that it had increased the number of successful candidates of the preliminary test in the light of the oral observations made by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 10268 of 2012 and its analogous cases, especially when in the batch of these five writ petitions including in C.W.J.C.No. 3640 of 2013, it has been stated in paragraph 9 as follows:
"9. That Subhash Paswan, Ananjay Kumar (petitioner no.15 of the present case) and other filed C.W.J.C.No. 10268/12 challenging the result published on 12.4.12 as contained in Annexure 2, for CBI investigation, and also for re-evaluation of answer book. Afzal Karim alongwith 22 persons including Prabhat Kumar (who is petitioner no.3 in the present case) filed C.W.J.C.No. 12506/12 filed for the same relief as prayed for by Subhash Paswan and others filed C.W.J.C.No. 14078/12 Vivek Ravi also filed C.W.J.C.No. 19678/12. The aforesaid writ application were also disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court, Patna vide order dated 30.10.12."
40. It is thus absolutely clear that some of the petitioners of these cases i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 and C.W.J.C. No. 3740/2013 were also petitioners in the earlier batch of writ applications challenging the result of the preliminary test and therefore, they were in a position to deny the aforesaid stand taken by the Commission in its counter affidavit but none of them have controverted the same. Additionally, this Court also must note the stand of the Commission in paragraphs no.28 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that 9 out of 20 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 3640/2013 and 6 writ petitioners in Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 56 C.W.J.C.No. 3740/2013 are amongst the beneficiaries of the revised result, inasmuch as they were initially not declared as successful candidates amongst 16497 candidates in the result of preliminary test declared by the Comission and in fact they came to be included only because 915 persons of the successful candidates of the lot of 16497 were to be retained as per oral observations made in course of hearing of batch of writ petitions and in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra). To that extent the following statement of the respondent Commission in its counter affidavit in paragraph no.28 reading as follows:
"28. That at this stage, it may be relevant to state herein that 9 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 3640 of 2013 out of a total of 20 writ petitioners and 6 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 3740 of 2013 are beneficiary of the revised results who were neither among the 17,497 candidates initially declared successful on 12.4.2012 nor were amongst the 1411 candidates included upon revision of results. These writ petitioners came to be accommodated as 915 candidates earlier selected had to be accommodated as they have secured marks equivalent to the aforesaid 915 candidates in the revised results. Thus, by the present writ petition after having participated willingly in the Mains examination, these writ petitioners cannot challenge the results of the P.T.examination declared on 28.12.2012."
would by itself go to show that the petitioners are virtually trying to raise an unnecessary issue and in fact to that extent they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate inasmuch as they have Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 57 earlier taken advantage of the revision of the result of the preliminary test and today they are trying to assail the same result which cannot be permitted on the settled principles of estoppel by conduct.
41. There is yet another facet to the whole issue, inasmuch as the total number of applicants in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission were 3,85,799 and out of them 2,53,795 had also appeared in the preliminary test. Thus, if the Commission had screened 27289 candidates i.e. almost 10% of the total of candidates appearing in the preliminary examination for allowing them to appear in the Main Examination the same cannot be held to be bad especially when there is no rule prohibiting the number of candidates. In fact the Bihar Public Service Commission has invariably been following the practice of either calling ten times of number of vacancies or 10% of the total candidates appearing in the preliminary test for the main written examination and/or interview.
42. Thus, having regard to all the aforesaid aspects of the matter this Court also does not find any merit that on account of increase in number of successful candidates of the preliminary test from 16497 to 27289 any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and in fact when some of them are only beneficiaries of such revision of result giving them at least a chance to appear in Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 58 the Main Examination today they cannot turn around and question the impugned result after they have become unsuccessful in the Main Examination.
43. That would bring this Court to the most keenly contested plea on which the parties were heard on a number of days. Initially a challenge was thrown by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the model key answers prepared by the Commission in respect of a large number of them were either incorrect or even questons themselves were wrong which in turn has seriously prejudiced the petitioners and other candidates being 1497 in all who were declared unsuccessful in the Main Examination. In this regard it would be useful to refer to the submissions of learned counsel of the petitioners as recorded in the proceedings of this Court dated 3.4.2013 in C.W.J.C.No. 3640/2013, which reads as follows:-
"After the matter has been heard at length both yesterday and today the Commission's decision for deleting question nos. 88, 97 and 123 is no longer contested by the counsel for the petitioners. Their objection only now remains in respect of deletion of question no. 111.
As with regard to questions for which an expert committee has changed the options namely, question no. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 the learned counsel for the petitioners have also got no grievance.
Even in respect of question for which two correct options were given by the expert committee, the counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy as with regard Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 59 to question nos. 98 and 119 and it is only in respect of question no. 82 that they have sought to make out a prima facie case.
The questions were still to be contested amongst the remaining 13 questions, the counsels of the petitioners in course of making their submission and having regard to the materials on record have ultimately not sought to press as with regard to question nos. 49, 52, 60, 66, 135 and 145.
That would now leave this Court to determine as to whether the rest of the questions namely question no. 61, 107, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149 along with question no. 82 and 111 needs to be referred to independent experts for obtaining their opinion, inasmuch as, from paragraph no. 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Commission, it becomes clear that the experts appointed by the Commission did not give any reason for changing their opinion as with regard to the model answers in respect to the aforementioned questions.
In that view of the matter, this Court would now hear the parties day after tomorrow only in respect of aforesaid nine questions for considering as to whether they have to be referred to independent experts for obtaining their opinion only after the counsel for the petitioners would file an affidavit with supporting materials referred to by them today in course of their submission and supplying copy thereof to the other side."
44. Thus the aforesaid order dated 3.4.2013, would bear it out that initially the challenge was thrown by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a large number of questions but ultimately they could not satisfy this Court in respect of all them. This Court had infact noted that their submission that questions Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 60 no. 88, 97, 107 and 123 in the subejct of General knowledge to the effect they had no correct answer in the four multiple choice given to such question and therefore, the Commission ought to have deleted them altogether. Counsel for the petitioners had also submitted that questions no. 98, 124, 125 and 147 in fact had two correct answers and therefore, those questions ought to have been also deleted especially when there was a provision for negative marking for wrong answer. As with regard to questions no. 5, 8, 21, 60, 144 and 145 it was submitted that one of the option given in the choice was itself correct but the Commission had changed them by a wrong answer which has prejudiced the examinees including the petitioners. Finally it was also contended that the Hindi rendering (Translation) of question no. 148 and 149 was altogether different from English version and as such, the Commission ought to have deleted them.
45. In course of submission, however, counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn their challenge towards questions no. 88, 97 and 123. They had further submitted that in view of the explanation given by the Commission they had no grievance with regard to questions no. 5, 8, 21, 49, 52, 60, 66, 69, 134 and 145. This Court also having examined the objection of the petitioners in respect of questions no. 98 and 119 had found no merit in them.
46. As a matter of fact the challenge of the petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 61 as recorded in the order dated 3.4.2013 had ultimately remained confined to questions no. 61, 82, 107, 111, 124, 125, 147, 148 and
149.
47. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 on the other hand has defended the stand of the Commission as clearly spelt out in the counter affidavit. In this regard, he had also produced the original records to show that after the Main Examination was held on 27.1.2013, the Commission itself had published the model answer- sheet as decided by the Board of Examiners for inviting objection from the candidates and in altogether 2861 objections were received with reference to the 80 questions/correct answers. He has also explained that on the basis of such objections received, the matter was again placed before the Board of Examiners who in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 having reviewed the question as also objection had re-determined their answers and had recommended correction of answer of question no. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 whereas it has found two answers to be correct in respect of question nos. 82, 98 and 119 and the Board of Examiners had also recommended for altogether deleting four questions as they had no correct answer, namely, question no.88, 97, 111 and 123.
48. The aforesaid whole aspect has been summarized in paragraph no.31 to 34 of the counter affidavit of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 62 Commission which for sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow:-
"31. That the mains examinations were held on 27.01.2013 at 47 examination centres in Patna. The scanning of the answer sheets was commenced on 28.01.2013 by the B.C.E.C.E. Board. The key (the correct answer for the question) prepared by the Questin setters was published/uploaded on the websies of the B.S.S.C. (Commission) on 28.01.2013 inviting objections from the candidates by 31.01.2013. It may be relevant to state herein that the Commission adopted the aforesaid procedure to ensure complete fairness and to avid any future complication and delay in final publication of the merit list. The said modality is now being followed by various other examinations bodies including B.P.S.C.. Till the prescribed date, i.e. 31.01.2013, 2861 objections were received with respect to 80 questions/correct answers.
32. That the Commission in all fairness, before publication of the results, based on the representation/objections of the candidates, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Expert teachers of all subjects to re-evaluate the questions and Model answer of the Examination.
33. That the Committee of Expert on 01.02.2013 reviewed all the questions and determined their answers and accordingly recommended as follows:-
(i) Correction of answers of Question Nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 & 145 i.e. 6 question.
(ii) It also suggested that Q. No. 82, 98 & 119 has two correct answers i.e. 3 questions.
(iii) It recommended that Q. Nos. 88, 97, 111 Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 63 & 123 be DELETED i.e. 4 questions.
Thus, the Expert Committee recommended deletion of questions/change in the model answer/addition of correct option with respect to 13 questions only in the following manner:
Sl Q. No. Model Recommendation of Expert
No. Answers Committee
1 05 A C
2 08 B C
3 21 A B
4 69 A D
5 82 C B+C*
6 88 B DELETED
7 97 A DELETED
8 98 D D+A*
9 111 C DELETED
10 119 D A+D*
11 123 C DELETED
12 144 A B
13 145 C B
*Either of the two opted by the candidates were to be awarded full marks.
34. That the Commission deliberated on the report of the Expert Committee on 6.02.2013 and decided to declare and publish the results for the Mains Examinatino based on the aforesaid recommendations of the Expert Committee and published/uploaded the result/merit list on 06.02.2013 on the website of the Commission on the basis of 146 questions by deleting Q. No. 88, 97, 111 & 123, correcting the answers for Q. No. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144, 145 as aforesaid and giving marks to all who had attempted either of the two options as aforesaid for question no. 82, 98 & 119. It may be stated that the objection of the candidates with respect to difference between the English and Hindi version of couple of questions were not entertained in view of Clause 6 of the Instructions as contained in the Test booklet which stated that if there is any Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 64 difference between English version and the corresponding translated version in Hindi of any question, then the English version will be treated as authentic."
49. In the light of the aforesaid explanation, this Court would find that though there may be scope for criticism for the wavering stand being taken by the Board of Examiners, inasmuch as, even according to them there were apparent thirteen mistakes in the model answers out of 150 questions and their respective answers. It has to be kept in mind that for every correct answer, four marks was to be given and for every wrong answer one mark was to be deducted as would be evident from the relevant portion of the extract of the booklet of question which reads as follows:-
"4. In the Test Booklet, there are 150 questions. Thus 150 questions in all are to be answered.
5. Each question is of 4 marks, which will be awarded for the correct answer. 1 mark will be deducted for each wrong answer. More than one Answer indicated against a Question will be declared as incorrect Answer.
6. If there is any difference between English version and the corresponding translated version in Hindi of any question, then the English version will be treated as authentic."
50. This Court, having found that the qualifying marks having been also set out in the supplementary counter affidavit ranging between 330 to 422 for different categories and among the 400 petitioners, 380 of them securing more than 300 Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 65 and above, was very particular as with regard to not only the fate of the petitioners but also of the rest of the candidates 1497 in all who were not declared successful in the Main Examination. It was in fact admitted by the counsel for the Commission himself that difference of even one question or one mark would make a world of difference in crossing of the line by becoming successful or going out of fence on being declared unsuccessful. Way back in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230, the law in this respect was laid down by Apex Court in the following words:-
"It is true that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct." And also held:-
"Where it is proved that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect the students are entitled to relief asked for. In case of doubt unquestionably the key answer has to be preferred. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong."
51. Based on the aforesaid parameters, this Court has very carefully examined the submission of the learned counsel for Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 66 the parties as with regard to the remaining question which remains under the zone of dispute despite re-determination by the Board of Examiners on the basis of which the marking was done. This Court would find merit in the objection of the petitioners to question no.82, which reads as follows:-
"82. The largest beach in India is in (A) Kerala (B) Goa (C) Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal"
52. The model answer in Annexure-11 had shown it as option "C" which would mean Tamilnadu. The Examiners in the process of redetermination however had held that though "C" may be correct answer but "B" i.e. the State of Goa will also be the correct answer. The question however asked from the candidates was which was the "largest" beach in India and there cannot be two largest. In fact, Mr. Jitendra Singh also after taking instruction from the Commission had ultimately fairly conceded that the revised model answer prepared by the Board of Examiners on 1.2.2013 so far it relates to question no. 82 was incorrect and the Commission was prepared to delete it as was also clearly recorded in the order-sheet dated 5.4.2013.
53. Simialry question no.147 and its four multiple choice answer had read as follows:-
"147. a, b, c, d, e and f are randomly siting in six chairs regularly spaced around a round table. Such that neighbours a is between d and e, c is opposite d, d and e are Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 67 not enighbours.
Which one of the following is true?
(A) a is opposite b (B) d is opposite e
(C) c and b are neighbours (D) b and e are neighbours"
The petitioners in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 have enclosed their objection-sheet which they had filed pursuant to the notice of the Commission inviting objection on the model answer to show that they too had pointed out that none of the answers were correct and yet the Board of Examiners had brushed them aside without changing the model answer which had shown option "D" to be the correct answer.
54. In course of submission, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Commission, however, again had to concede that the option "D" decided by the expert was incorrect answer and in fact he had made such submission after getting instruction from the Commission. He had also admitted that there was no correct answer in any of the four options of question no. 147 as quoted above. He had also fairly submitted that since none of the four answers in option were correct and the Commission was prepared to delete the said question no. 147, which was also recorded by this Court in the order dated 5.4.2013 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
"When the further hearing of these cases has commenced today, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission, having instruction from Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 68 the Chairman of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, has made a submission that out of nine questions namely, questions no. 61, 82, 107, 111, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149 which were under the zone of dispute as recorded in the earlier order dated 3.4.2013, the Commission on reconsideration is prepared to change the answer in respect of question no.82 relating to the largest beach. He has submitted that there will be only one correct answer namely the largest beach will be in the state of Tamilnadu which is option "C" amongst the four alternative answers given. He has, accordingly, submitted that the Commission is prepared to review the answersheets of all the candidates on the basis of answer no. "C" of question no.82 to be the only correct answer.
Proceeding further, Mr. Singh has also submitted that on a reconsideration, the Commission finds that there would be no correct answer in respect of question no. 147, inasmuch as, if all the parameters therein have to strictly followed, which must be followed, none of the four alternative answers would be correct. He has, accordingly, on instruction of the Commission taken a stand that the Commission is prepared to delete altogether question no. 147 from its being evaluated alike questions no. 88, 97, 111 and 123.
As with regard to the rest of the seven questions, this Court has heard the parties at length.
At this stage, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Commission, seeks adjournment to take further instruction as with regard to the stand of Commission in respect of questions no.148 & 149."
55. As with regard to question no.148 and 149 which in English and Hindi rendering in answer booklet reads as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 69
"148. The numbers in the following diagram shows the failures in the respective exams. The total number of students was 500. The % of students who failed in at least two exams is English 30 12 10 5 75 80 12 Hindi Maths (A) 6.8 (B) 7.8 (C) 34 (D) 39 ^^148- fuEu fp= esa laLFkk, mu ijh{kvksa esa Qsy Nk=ksa dks n"kkZrh gSA dqy Nk= la[;k 500 gSA mu Nk=ksa dh la[;k tks U;wure nks ijh{kkvksa esa Qsy gq, gSa bafXy'k 30 12 10 5 75 80 12 fgUnh xf.kr (A) 6.8 (B) 7.8 (C) 34 (D) 39 Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 70
149. In a class, 18 boys are > 160 cm tall. This constitute 3/4 of the boys. The boys are 2/3 of the total students. The number of girls in the class is (A) 6 (B) 12 (C) 18 (D) 24 149- ,d d{kk esa 18 yM+ds > 160 ls-eh- yacs gSA ;g dqy Nk=ksa dk 3@4 gSA dqy Nk=ksa dk 2@3 yM+ds gSA d{kk esa yM+fd;ksa dh la[;k gS (A) 6 (B) 12 (C) 18 (D) 24"
56. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that its Hindi rendering was altogether different to the english version and to that extent, they had pointed out the dichotomy and confusion created on account of totally different meaning being conveyed in Hindi version. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners had also explained that on account of absolutely different expression in the Hindi translation of questions in English rendering of the aforesaid two questions, it had created sufficient doubt in the minds of the examinees including the petitioners who having found none of them to be correct by simultaneous reading of both Hindi and English text could not be penalized and yet their objections to the model answer holding option "B" to be correct in respect of both the question nos. 148 & 149 was wrongly rejected by the Commission in view of the opinion of the Board of Examiners.
57. Mr. Jitnedra Singh while in respect of question no.148 having taken instruction from the Commission had Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 71 submitted that the Commission in view of incorrect translation in Hindi was prepared to delete also question no.148 from the zone of consideration as it had a wrong answer but in view of the instruction no.4 on the OMR Sheet already quoted above, the Commission was of the view that there was no such glaring difference in the Hindi rendering of the question no.149. He however had submitted that there appeared to be some confusion in the Hindi rendering on account of there being no literal translation of the English in Hindi version and the Commission in order to remove this discrepancy was prepared to delete even question no.149 from the zone of consideration. This part of his submissions was recorded in the order-sheet dated 8.4.2013 relevant portion whereof is quoted herein below:-
"Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, has submitted that the Commission on reconsideration has agreed for deleting question no. 148 from the zone of consideration taking into account that the hindi translation of the same question was not giving the correct impression of the four answers deduced on the basis of english rendering of the said question.
He, however, has submitted that the position would not be the same in relation to question no. 149, inasmuch as, Hindi rendering of the question will not give any correct answer and therefore, as per instruction no. 6 of the question booklet the examinees Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 72 were required to find out the correct answer with the help of English rendering of the question. He has, however, submitted that the Commission does not want to linger the issue and if it is accepted by the petitioners that there would be no further probing of any other question, the Commission in all fairness will also delete question no. 149 from its consideration.
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least two questions i.e. question no. 124 and 125 would require the view of the independent expert because the answer given by some of the petitioners as option 'B' in to the said question is fully borne and stands supported from exercise books and as such the view of the experts of the Commission of only option 'A' to be correct cannot be acted upon. For that purpose he has referred to a book naming 'A Modern Approach to Verbal Reasoning' written by Sri R.S Aggarwal."
58. In the considered opinion of this Court, such stand taken on behalf of the learned counsel for the Commission seems to be very fair, inasmuch as, such of the questions which had incorrect answer has to be altogether deleted from the zone of consideration as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur university(supra):-
"--------- in a system of „Multiple Choice Objective type test‟, care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 73 answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is „yes‟ or „no‟. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it."
59. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (supra) infact has been also subsequently followed in the its later judgments in the cases of Abhijit Sen & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402, Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board & Ors. Vs. Chandan Mishra & Ors. reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 77 and State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta & Ors. reported in 1996(7)SCC 106.
60. This Court, however, would find no merit in the challenge of the petitioner to the question no. 61, which reads as follows:-
"61. The primay product of photosynthesis is (A) Citric acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose"
61. The model answer was Option "B" i.e. Glucose being primary product of photosynthesis which is well supported by the authorised text book published by N.C.E.R.T. Thus such opinion of experts on this answer cannot be questioned by the petitioners or accepted by the Court only on the basis of some Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 74 publication in Guide to the Competitive Examination wherein both starch and glucose have been shown to be the answer. The Apex court in the case of Kanpur University (supra) had itself drawn a line of caution in this regard in the following words :-
"It is true that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in he particular subject would regard as correct."
62. The grievance of the petitioners as with regard to question no.111 is also wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the Board of Examiners on the basis of the objection filed by the examinees including the petitioners have deleted the question no.111 from the zone of consideration. In view of the fact that this question is not going to be evaluated for any of the candidates, this Court fails to understand as to how the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be accepted that the Board of Examiners had in fact committed a mistake in deleting question no.111 though it had a correct answer in the model key answers. The moment such question no.111 has gone out of consideration for all the candidates, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners alone. Thus, the challenge of the petitioners to Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 75 question no. 111 also must be rejected.
63. Judged on the aforementioned parameters, this Court also does not find any merit to the challenge of the petitioner in respect of question nos. 107, 124 & 125 all three of which are based on logical deduction. The answers determined in respect of them by the experts, being the members of the Board of examiners, cannot be lightly brushed aside and interfered with by this Court only on the basis of some guides of competitive examination produced by the counsel for the parties, namely, "Modern Approach to Verbal Reasoning" written by Sri R.S. Agarwal. In fact, the Intervener respondents have also produced some other books/opinion to show that the answer given by the experts in the key answer in respect of those question nos. 61, 107, 124 and 125 were correct.
64. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of LIC Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar reported in 1994(2)SCC 718, in the case of A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. reported in 2004(7)SCC 112 and in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. reported in 2010(6) SCC 759, it must be held that this Court cannot take on the role of examiners or evaluators or that of the selection board to examine discrepancy either in the question paper or the answer sheet so as to assume the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 76 role of examiners paper setter and evaluator which is to be left to the expert body. It is with reason and purpose that courts have to assume the answer given in the key answer to be correct and any interference in a very light manner would tend this Court to take the role of the paper setter which would be clearly beyond the purview of judicial review. As is well understood and well settled, the power of judicial review generally speaking is not to be extended against the decision but is directed only against the decision making process.
65. Thus, this Court would only sustain the challenge of the petitioners to wrong answers in respect of only four questions, namely, question no. 82, 147, 148 and 149 which have in fact had also been conceded by the learned senior counsel for the Commission.
66. This Court however will be under obligation to also consider one more submission of Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners who in his usual flair has submitted with vehemence that on account of large number of infirmities beginning from expanding the zone of consideration to large number of mistakes of questions and model key answers in the preliminary test and again in the Main Examination where there is also a cloud with regard to the access of criminals in the strong room of the office of the Commission, this Court should set Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 77 aside the entire selection process by directing the Commission to hold a fresh selection process de novo. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. O. Chakradhar reported in 2002(3)SCC 146.
67. This Court on threadbare analysis of the materials on record and after hearing the parties would find that there is no such inherent infirmity which has infact vitiated the entire selection process. As noted above, the zone of number of candidates have increased on account of the oral observations made by this Court in course of hearing the writ applications directed against the result of the preliminary test and in fact as this Court had desired to save the fate and future of 915 candidates already declared successful in the preliminary test that the Commission had to lower down the cut off marks. Again, some of the petitioners themselves being beneficiary of such revised result of the preliminary test on account of lowering of the cut off marks, they cannot be heard to say that the entire selection process was vitiated. Added to all these, this Court has found no criminality in holding of the Main Examination or preparation of its result, an aspect which has been also fully explained in the counter affidavit filed by the I.G., Economic Offence Wing wherein nothing has been said about the answer-sheet being tampered relating to Main Examination whose results have been questioned by the Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 78 petitioners in these writ petitions.
68. The case law referred to and relied by Mr. Srivastava in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) is also wholly inapplicable in the facts of these cases inasmuch as, the Apex Court in that case, on the basis of the report of the CBI, had found that the anshwer-sheet packets were stealthily opened and answers were filled up in the blank spaces left by the examinees while they were in the custody of the Chairman of the Commission. As a matter of fact, further findings were recorded with regard to interview wherein two boards were constituted for the interview having no technical personnel as its member as per requirement. It was also indicated in that case that though each member was required to award marks to the candidates in the individual assessment sheets to be provided to them and average was to be worked out and the columns being vacant 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. Added to all these things, there were allegation of huge amount of money being taken for selecting the candidates and the CBI had also found that the non-official Chairman of the Board had made payment of printing of the examination paper etc. not to any firm but individually. Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 79
69. The Apex Court having thus found from the report of the CBI that the whole selection smacks of malafide and arbitrariness and all norms were violated with impunity at each stage i.e. right from the stage of entertaining applications with answer-sheet while in the custody of he Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in preparing the final result. It was in such circumstances, that the Apex Court had held that it was not 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 following observations of the Apex Court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) therefore is the ratio wherein it was laid down that:-
"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.
12. ----------- The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 80 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."
70. Thus, from a threadbard analysis of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that it was one of those cases where the entire process of selection was found to be vitiated. Such is however not the facts of the cases in hand and, therefore, this Court in absence of any evidence to show that there was any glaring malpractice in the examination or preparation of result would reject the prayer for cancellation of the entire selection process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 81
71. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter also stands settled in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2525-2516 of 2013 disposed of on 13th of March, 2013 wherein when a direction was given by this Court for the cancelation of entire selection on account of number of incorrect answers in the model answer conducted by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for filling up the post of Junior Engineers, it was held by the Apex Court that fresh evaluation of the answer-sheet was the better option instead of cancelling the entire examination. The Apex Court in fact had held as follows:-
"16. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re- evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 82 between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the directin of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case."
72. Having explained the inapplicability of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra), this Court is not required to once again consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishan Yadav and Another vs State of Haryana and Ors reported in 1994(4) SCC 165 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C No. 3640 of 2013, inasmuch as, not only the aforementioned case was referred to in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) but even otherwise from a bare perusal of the facts of that case it would be clear that actually fraud was practised in course of selection and appointment of Taxation Inspector by Chairman and members of the Subordinate Selection Board, rendering the whole examination and interview to be farce. It was in this regard that the Apex Court had held as follows:-
"Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo". Deed as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded of the words of Shakespeare:
"Thus much of this, will make Black, white;foul, fair;wrong, right;Base, noble; Ha you gods!why this?"
It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 83 considerations. Otherwise, how does one account fore selection without interview, fake and ghost i nterviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity.
The Story does not end here. From out of the "selection list"secret communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents.
It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and teh interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to com across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.
In the above circumstances, what are we to do?The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accpet this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selectio is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors."
73. Obviously, in the present case there is no such allegation and except for a faint suggestion that the answer sheets of the Main Examination kept in the strong room of the Commission were interfered, which also is not found to be substantiated in any manner. This infact stands well explained from the counter affidavit filed by I.G Economic Offences as has already been dealt in earlier part of the judgment. Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 84
74. Reliance placed on the next judgment by Mr. Dinu Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner on the case of Pramod Kumar Dukania and Ors vs The State of Bihar and Ors reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 325 is equally misplaced. The facts of that case and the finding recorded by this Court will go to show that in the Combined Engineering Entrance Examination conducted by the department of Science & Technology of the Government of Bihar was found to be fully vitiated on account of use of unfair and fraudulent means as well as tampering of records. Similarly, even in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha vs The State of Bihar reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 744 relating to selection process of Bihar Administrative Service first Limited Competitive Examination-2003 conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, it was found that a large scale illegality and irregularity were committed in the selection process including the preparation of merit list and in the vigilance inquiry it was conclusively found that an organized conspiracy was hatched to which the Chairperson, Members, Officials and Staff of Bihar Public Service Commission became party as a result whereof their entire selection process was tainted and tarnished ever since the issuance of the advertisement. This Court infact would fail to understand as to how in the facts of the present case the ratio of the aforementioned two judgments of the learned Single Judge in Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 85 the case of Pramod Kumar Dukania (supra) and Sunil Kumar Sinha (supra) can be made applicable.
75. At this place it would be also important to note one of the submissions on behalf of the successful candidates who have intervened in CWJC No. 3640 of 2013. It was submitted on their behalf that even if this Court would hold that reevaluation on account of deletion of four question nos. 82, 147, 148 & 149 would be necessary, the said exercise may be confined only to the unsuccessful candidates without displacing 25792 candidates whose result have already been declared. In this regard, reliance by them have been placed on the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra).
76. This Court however, would find it difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions, inasmuch as, in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that once the selected candidates on the basis of the earlier evaluation were already appointed and had also worked for a period of more than seven years, they could not be displaced and would be only affected in their respective inter-se merit position, emerging out of the reevaluation of the answer sheets of unsuccessful candidates with reference to the correct key answers. This aspect also gets explained from paragraph nos. 17 & 18 of judgment which for sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 86
"17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners-respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the „cut off‟ mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 87 them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.
18. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-
evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 88 appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list."
77. Thus it would become clear that the earlier selection of the candidates were not interferred only because they had already been appointed and had continued in service for more than seven years. In the present case the Commission has only declared the result which is yet to even reach the government in form of recommendation of the Commission. Infact this Court had restrained the Commission from conducting counselling and thus the Commission has not even sent its recommendation for 3285 advertised posts.
78. In view of the above, it has to be held that reevaluation after deleting the four questions i.e. question nos. 82, 147, 148 & 149 has to be made in respect of each and every 27289 declared successful in the preliminary test including 25792 who have been declared successful in the Main Examination.
79. That would bring this Court to the last plea of the petitioners Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the declaration of result by the Commission being not post-wise and category-wise would vitiate the entire result. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, however has explained this aspect by relying on paragraph no.35 of the counter affidavit which reads as Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 89 follows:-
"35. That thus in terms of the available vacancies, a total of 3285 candidates category wise have been invited for counseling on 25.02.2013 in the following manner:
Category Cut off/no. of Disabled/no. Total candidates of candidates General 422 1522 47 367 1571 SC 361 505 16 329 521 ST 330 97 1 291 98 BC 414 340 11 396 351 MBC 396 597 18 374 615 WBC 373 129 - - 129 3285"
80. Mr. Singh has also explained that the result of the successful candidates have been published strictly in accordance with the requisition sent by the State Government for various categories and since counseling in each of the category has to be made for different types of post, there could not have been separate cagegory-wise recommendation for each of the post. He has also explained that in any view of the matter this will not make any material difference because ultimately for each of the department on the basis of option given by the successful candidates in course of counseling the post will have to be filled up by following the Rules of Reservation and Roaster amongst the successful candidates on merit.
81. In the considered opinion of this Court when a large number of post, around 3285 of different categories in different departments have to be filled up, the Commission having Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 90 held one examination can only send the consolidated list of recommendation only on the basis of counseling after seeking option and choice of the successful candidates in the Main Examination on the basis of merit and rank secured by each of the candidate in the respective category. This exercise infact is yet to be made by the Commission and in fact no prejudice on this score can be complained by unsuccessful 1497 candidates including the petitioners inasmuch as the result of Main Examination of 25792 candidates declaring them to be successful would ultimately get limited to recommendation for appointment on 3285 posts. Infact no illustration has been given as to how any of the petitoner could have qualified by displacing of any of the successful candidates in case such recommendation was made postwise and categorywise.
82. This Court is also not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Abhinav Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner who while explaining the aforesaid aspect relating to non-publication of result category-wise had sought to impress that in the unreserved category for 1571 posts the inclusion of candidates of the reserved category who ultimately may not avail the benefit of the unreserved category on account of their being not given the choice post in course of counselling would lead to an anamalous situation by creation of further vacancy for the candidates of unreserved category.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 91
83. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission of Mr. Srivastava is completely hypothetical. The question which as of now before this Court is as to whether the Main Examination which was held by the Commission and its result published by the Commission is in accordance with law. What would be the recommendation of the Commission based on such result is a subsequent event and in fact is also not the subject matter of these writ applications and, therefore, they cannot be gone into at least at the instance of the petitioners who as of now are unsuccessful candidates of the Main Examination. The petitioners being represented by Mr. Srivastava are in fact candidates of the unreserved (general) category and, therefore, they are not entitled to question the result of the reserved candidates specially when none of them have cited their specific case by way of example that anyone of them could have been included on the vacancy created by the candidate of the reserved category who in course of counselling would not avail the benefit of unreserved category for the purpose of choice of post. This Court, therefore, for the time being would not make any pronouncement on this issue especially when neither it is within the scope of the writ application nor has been explained in the pleadings in any one of the five writ applications. To that extent, this Court must accept the submission of Mr. Singh, learned senior Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 92 counsel for the Commission, that the respondents cannot be taken by surprise on this issue in absence of any pleading to this effect.
84. Thus, in the light of the discussions made above, all the writ applicatins are allowed and the result of the Main Examination declared by the Commission is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the Commission to re-evaluate all the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioners who had appeared in the Main Examination for filling up the 3285 posts of Graduate Level Combined Examination, 2010 relating to Advertisement No. 110/10 by deleting question nos. 82, 147, 148 and 149 and prepare a fresh result for its being published and sending recommendation to the State Government for doing the needful and making appointment on the 3285 advertised posts.
85. This exercise however must be completed by the Commission within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and the resultant appointment by the State Government also must be made within next three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission.
86. Before parting with, this Court, however, must record its concern the manner in which the Commission has time and again failed in its duty in holding the competitive examination in a fair and objective manner. The Commission has been entrusted with huge responsibility of making recommendation of Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 93 all non-gazetted post and in fact is conducting competitive test for a large number of candidates for various Class-III posts. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note it time and again that the Commission has utterly failed in its duty in even holding such competitive test in a flawless manner.
87. As noted above, in this very case of advertisement no. 110/10 wherein around two and half lac candidates had appeared in the preliminary test, this Court had found that on account of deletion/changing the answer of nine questions, the fate and future of around eleven thousand candidates had changed, inasmuch as, the Commission had to revise the result by enhancing the number of qualified candidates from 16497 to 27289 candidates simply to preserve the 915 candidates who were earlier declared successful in the result of preliminary test on the basis of wrong evaluation of the nine questions. Again in the Main Examination, this Court has found that the Commission itself had deleted four questions out of 150 as per the opinion of the experts, namely, question nos. 88, 97, 111 and 123 whereas answers in respective question nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 were changed and in respect of three questions namely question nos. 82, 98 and 119, the experts had found two answers to be correct. Thus, out of 150 questions, the answers of 13 of them were found to be itself incorrect or doubtful by the experts of the Commission and now Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 94 when four more questions no. 82, 147, 148 and 149 have been found to be fit to be deleted, the percentage of error would be more than 12%.
88. Such increasing number of errors in either preparation of questions paper or model key answer would reflect on the selection of poor quality of the examiners/experts which is being done on account of the incompetent and inexperienced set of persons associated with the functioning of the Commission. Keeping in view that in these competitive examinations, not only the correct answer in a multiple choice answer to a question involves full marks for only one correct answer as also negative mark for a wrong answer, it would be in the fitness of the things that this job of recruitment is undertaken by the State of Bihar through some specialized expert agency having sufficient experience in the field of Human Relation (HR). A time has come when the State Government must think to utilize the services of experts of the field who would be better suited to evolve a fool-proof mechanism for holding such competitive examinations wherein there would be no place for giving any occassion for questioning the functioning of the Commission on account of large scale allegations of incompetence and corrupt practice.
89. This Court would not like to say anything more on this aspect but then would expect the State Government to give a Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 95 serious re-thinking as with regard to the functioning of the Commission and its being manned by persons having no real experience of holding competitive examination and recruitment on a massive scale. As things stand today, every exercise of the Commission in holding the competitive examinations for filling up the post has generated hundred of litigations before this Court which can be safely avoided if the functioning of the Commission improves. In an age where the aspiration of the unemployed youth for getting employment on the basis of competitive examination is increasing everyday, the State Government cannot close its eye by remaining satisfied by appointing persons as Chairman and Members of the Commission who are not the expert in the field of recruitment and holding competitive examinations. It is high time that in the age of specialization, the generalists should make a place for the experts of the job which in turn would not only inspire in the selection process undertaken by the Commission but would also brighten the hopes and expectation of every candidate of being assured that true merit and nothing else will only be rewarded in the selection undertaken by the Commission.
90. This Court therefore hopes and believes that, before it becomes too late in the day, some serious thinking will be done at the highest level of the State Government for improving the over all functioning of the Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2013 (10) dt.26-04-2013 96
91. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for its being considered by the State Government.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court Dated 20th August 2013 A.F.R./Surendra