Patna High Court - Orders
Prakash Kr.Badal & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 February, 2011
Author: Jayanandan Singh
Bench: Jayanandan Singh
In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna
Cow No.14170 Of 2010
1-Pinku Kumar Singh S/O Shri Gaya Prasad Singh Vill.+P.O.-
Sheopur, P.S.- Bikramganj, Distt.- Rohtas, Pin-802204,
Roll No. 66060302
2-Bishwajeet Kumar S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vill. + P.O.-
Kanbehri, P.S. Mufassil, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar),
Roll No. 64030080
3-Ashutosh Kumar S/O Late Shri Ramnarayan Singh
Vill.+P.O.- Ramdiri (Lawarkchak), P.S. Matihani, Distt.-
Begusarai, Roll No. 95010899
4-Brijmohan Singh S/O Sheodayal Singh Vill.-Sahpur, P.O.
Sahpur, P.S. Sahpur, Distt.- Patna, Roll No. 60640259
5-Nikesh Kumar S/O Shri Surendra Prasad Vill.+P.O.-
Kapasiya, P.S. Paraiya, Distt.- Gaya, Roll No. 62050049
6-Pawan Kumar S/O Krishna Murari Singh Vill.- Garfuchak,
P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Airport, Distt.- Patna, Roll No.
60560337
7-Pankaj Kumar Singh S/O Shri Ram Pravesh Singh Vill.-
Bhakhra, P.O. Deshpur (Amba), P.S. Amba, P.S. Amba,
Distt.- Aurangabad, Roll No. 64540761
8-Shitanshu Vyas S/O Shri Anirudh Jha Vill.+P.O.
Bhatihani, P.S. Bhatihani, Distt.- Begusarai, Roll No.
95050118
9-Arun Kumar Pandey S/O Lal Mani Pandey Vill.- Bahdura,
P.O. Dadar, P.S. Mohania, Distt.- Bhabhua (Kaimur), Roll
No. 69190718
10-Rajesh Ranjan S/O Sajadhar Prasad Yadav Vill.- Bahurwa,
P.O. Kanjari, P.S. Salkhuwa, Distt.- Saharsa, Roll No.
60730238
11-Bikesh Kumar S/O Jhakash Sah Vill.- Hussainchak, P.O.
Mahkhar, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Saharsa, Roll
No. 81060490
12-Bablu Yadav S/O Dinesh Kr. Singh Vill.+P.O.+P.S.-
Sisrit Tola, P.S. Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas, Roll No.
68050906
................... Petitioners
Versus
1-The State Of Bihar
2-The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment)
Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary
3-The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board (Constable
Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4-The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board (Constable
Recruitment), Bihar, Patna ............... Respondents
With
Cwjc No.14742 Of 2010
1. Praveen Kumar S/O Sri Ramadhar Ram R/O Vill.- Phingi
Tola, P.O.+P.S.- Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur, Roll No.-
66210161
2. Vikas Kumar S/O Sri Ramuchit Pd. Singh R/O Vill.+P.O.-
Rupas, P.S.- Athmalgola, Distt.- Patna, Roll No.-
60810508
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selectio Board (Constable Recruitment)
Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board
2
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
.................. Respondents
With
CWJC No.503 Of 2011
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Shri Hare Krishna Singh, Resident
Of Village Naryar, P.O. Naryar, P.S. Saharsa, District-
Saharsa
2. Arunam Kumar, S/O Chhatu Singh, Resident Of Village +
Post- Enai, District- Chapra (Bihar), Roll No.75100528
3. Alok Kumar, S/O Surendra Mishra, Resident Of Village +
Post + P.S. Bangaon West Tola, District- Saharsa, Roll
No.81080341
4. Pranav Kumar Singh, S/O Shishupal Singh, Resident Of
Villo- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar, District- Munger (Bihar),
Roll No.90010603
5. Suren Kumar Singh, S/O Ramanand Singh, Resident Of
Village Diyari, Post Sonali, P.S. Kadwa, District-
Katihar, Roll No.86060074
6. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Surendra Singh, Resident
Of Village Jagdishpur, P.O. Nawada, District- Buxar,
Roll No.67090283
7. Payprakash Kumar S/O Sri Uma Shankar Prasad, Resident
Of Vill.- Lakhiboy, P.O. Masauri, District- Patna, Roll
No.60490219
8. Abhay Kumar, S/O Suresh Parasad Singh, Resident Of
Vill.- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar, District- Munger, Roll
No.90050529
9. Saurave Kumar, S/O Prakash Sharma, Resident Of Vill-
Kheraihiya, Babatola, P.O.+P.S. Akbar Nagar, District-
Bhagalpur
10. Gautam Kumar Pandey, S/O Anil Kumar Pandey, R/O
Vill+P.O.+P.S. Rahui, Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61140140
11. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, S/O Banshidhar Mishra, R/O
Vill+P.O. Sonbarsa, District Bhojpur (Bihar), Roll
No.60350633
12. Ravi Kumar, S/O Parsuram Sinha, R/O Vill- Guljarbagh,
Karpi, P.O. Karpi, District- Arwal, Roll No.62210770
13. Amitabh, S/O Harnath Kunwar, R/O Vill- Chainpur
Chamariya, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Masrakh, District- Chhapra
(Saran), R.No.75310218
14. Rajnish Kr.Tiwari, S/O Lal Babu Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O.
Kumana, District- Chapra, Roll No.75130209
15. Bimlesh Kuamr, S/O Bidyanand Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O.
Balha Bazar, P.S. Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria, Roll
No.95030462
16. Raju Kr.Singh, S/O Ramashankar Singh, R/O Vill-
Mathurapur, P.S. Koilwar, Distt.- Bhojpur(Ara) Roll
No.66350187
17. Anil Kumar Jha, S/O Chandra Kant Jha, R/O Vill+P.O.
Madhesra, Distt.- Sitamarhi, Roll No.72060631
18. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Rambhawan Singh, R/O Vill-
Bank Mens, P.O.+P.S. Hajipur, Distt.- Vaishali, Roll
No.71160218
19. Avinash Priyadarshi, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill-
Parsurai, P.O. Panhar, P.S. Khudaganj, Distt- Nalanda,
Roll No.61030596
20. Manish Kuamr, S/O Mundrika Singh, R/O Vill-Biraini,
P.O. Motha, P.S. Karakat, Distt- Rohtas, Roll
No.68090400
3
21. Tarun Kr.Yadav, S/O Vishwanath Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O.
Suggapatti, Phulparas, Distt- Madhubani, Roll
No.79010572
22. Narottam Kumar, S/O Dilip Singh, R/O Vill.-Kishunpur,
P.O. Kachanama, Distt- Jehanabad, Roll No.62120281
23. Santosh Kumar, S/O Prasan Das, R/O Vill- Belahi, Post-
Lohar, P.S. Pundol, Distt- Madhubani, Roll No.79030116
24. Alok Kr.Singh, S/O Virendra Pd.Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.-
Babura, Distt.-Bajpur(Ara), Roll No.66010965
25. Sujit Kr.Singh, S/O Vikrama Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.
Kundesar, Distt- Bhojpur, Roll No.71120066
26. Sambhu Singh, S/O Rameshwar Singh, Vill- Bajruhan,
P.O.- Udwant Nagar, Distt- Bhojpur(Ara) Roll No.66200231
27. Rajeev Kr.Singh, S/O Balram Singh, R/O Vill-Samhota,
P.O. Kopasamhota (South Tola), Distt.- Chapra, Roll
No.75440024
28. Mirtunjay Kumar Singh, S/O Pawan Kr.Singh, R/O Vill-
B.M.P., P.O.- R.T.S., P.S. Singhoul, Distt.- Begusarai,
R.No.95020680
29. Mukesh Kumar, S/O Indal Ram, R/O Vill.- Budhgharya,
P.O. Paley, P.S. Walirgang, Distt.-Gaya, Roll
No.62150327
30. Vinay Kumar, S/O Mahendra Ram, R/O Vill- Budhgharya,
P.O. Paley, P.S. Wazirganj, Distt.- Gaya, Roll
No.62320082
31. Adarsh Kumar, S/O Ramjanam Chaubey, R/O At Bishnopura,
P.O. Imadpur, Distt.- Bhojpur, Roll No.66260147
32. Vikash Kumar, S/O Janardan Prasad, R/O
Vill+P.O.Nardiganj Road, Gadhpar, P.S. Nawada, Distt.-
Nawada, R.No.65120102
33. Gauri Shankar Kumar, S/O Saryug Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O.
Sahugarh Karu, P.S.+ Distt.- Madhepura, Roll No.82010259
34. Sunil Kr.Ja, S/O Vijay Prakash Jha, R/O Vill+P.O.
Kataresh, Distt.- Katihar, Roll No.89010471
35. Anand Sagar, S/O Sighnath Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Karup,
Distt.- Bhojpur, Roll No.68010667
36. Vikram Kumar, S/O Sri Mohan Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill-
Kanhainagar, P.S. Nawada, Distt.- Nawada, Roll
No.65080240
37. Durgesh Kr.Singh, S/O Rajeshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Dudhi
West, P.O.+P.S. , Distt.- Saran, Roll No.75340064
38. Vishwajeet Kr., S/O Bhushan Chaudhari, R/O B.M.P.-5,
D.I.G. Office, P.O.- B.V.College, P.S. Airport, Distt.-
Patna, Roll No.60700026
39. Nawin Kumar, S/O Satendra Singh, R/O Vill.- Gangti,
P.O.+P.S.- Kaludganj, Distt.- Nalanda, Roll No.61220018
40. Zahid Alam, S/O Jahangir Alam, R/O Ehsania Hotel Nagni
Chowk Ganj No.2, Ward No.19 Bettiah, Distt.- West
Champaran, Roll No.74050233
41. Anish Kr.Singh, S/O Paras Singh, R/O Vill.+Post Ramper
Souna, Distt.- West Champaran, Roll No.74010195
42. Akash, S/O Rambilash Sharma, R/O Vill- Vankosh &
Company, P.S.- Patliputra Colony, Distt.- Patna, Roll
No.60310563
43. Washim Akram, S/O Zahiruddin Khan, R/O Vill-
Baranpura, P.O.+P.S. Khairah, Distt- Chapra, Roll
No.75230210
44. Rahul Kumaqr, S/O Shambhu Singh, R/O Vill- Kolhua,
Post- Maijhara, Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61030608
4
45. Alok Kumar, S/O Amod Pathak, R/O Vill+Post- Bishnupur,
Deorhi Via Barhara Kothi, Distt.- Porniya, Roll
No.84010593
46. Raj Kumar, S/O Manohar Pd.Yadav, R/O At+P.O.- Katra,
P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur, Roll No.89030649
47. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Harishankar Sahu, R/O Vill-
Kaurihar, P.O. Kharaujha, Chakiya, Chandoli, Distt.-
U.P., Roll No.78030446
48. Bednarayan Yadav, S/O Ramesh Yadav, R/O Vill+Post
Baskatti, Bai-Bahera, Distt.- Darbhanga, Roll
No.78110369
49. Pradeep Yadav, C/O Ramgulam Mahto, R/O Vill-
Dilawarpur, P.O.- Milkichak, Darbhanga, Roll No.78040334
50. Ajit Kumar, S/O Kamleshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Vishnupuri
Anisabad, Patna(2), Roll No.60020244
51. Ajay Tiwari, C/O Prabhusaran Tiwari, R/O Vill+Post-
Belshar, P.S. Barouli Via Jamo Bazar, Distt.- Gopalganj,
Roll No.77040703
52. Chandrashekhar Kr., S/O Arun Kumar, R/O Vill.- Naya
Tola Khirodarpur, Post- Fatuha, P.S. Khushrupur,
District- Patna (Bihar), Roll No.60180172
53. Bijay Kumar, S/O Badan Singh, R/O Vill.- Newtolia,
P.O. Marar, P.S. Morkahi, Distt.- Khagaria, Roll
No.94020181
54. Raghvendra Kr.Tiwari, S/O Shailendra Tiwari, R/O Vill-
Nijuara, Post- Moura, P.S. Khaira, Via Gidhaur, Distt.-
Jamui, Roll No.93070041
55. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Moleshwari Pd.Singh, R/O Vill-
Labhet, Post- Noomer, Distt.- Jamui, Roll No.93010316
56. Sushil Kumar Kashyap, S/O Dhaniram Singh, R/O Vill.-
Chouthi, Post- Dumraith, P.S.- Bhabhua, Distt.- Kaimur,
R.No.69040800
57. Shankar Kumar, S/O Ram Chandra Bhagat, R/O Vill- P.O.
Kab, P.S.- Ranitalab, Distt.- Patna, Roll No.60600165
58. Ranjeet Kumar, S/O Lt.Chamaru Pd.Singh, R/O At, P.O.-
Sondiha, P.S. Pasraha, Distt.- Khagaria, R. No.94050269
59. Gyan Shankar Tiwari, S/O Nanho Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O.
Dharauli, Distt.- Chandauli (U.P.), Roll No.80050298
60. Dhanjay Kr.Sharma, S/O Harishankar Thakur, R/O Vill +
Post- Gahmar, Patti Ghopal R.N.Gazipur (U.P.), Roll
No.75020397
61. Deepak Kumar Singh, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill.-
Chainpurwan, P.O. Navaon, P.S. Awtarnagar, Distt.-
Saran, R.No.75330113
62. Pankaj Kumar, S/O Kamakhya Narayan Singh, R/O
Vill+P.O.- Goriapur, Via Dighwara, Distt- Saran, Roll
No.75310112
63. Dinesh Kumar, S/O Suresh Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill- Araria,
P.O. Balaha, Distt- Khagaria, Roll No.94010495
64. Rajaram Kumar, S/O Yougal Singh, R/O Vil- Madhurapur,
P.O. Madhurapur, Purbi, Tola, Distt- Begusarai, Roll
No.95060028
65. Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Ram Swarup Singh, R/O At+P.O.-
Madhurapur, Purabarai Tola, Distt- Begusarai, Roll
No.95050113
66. Dhurendhar Kr. Yadav, S/O Ramreet Yadav, R/O Vill-
Dewariya, P.O. Hasvalahi, Distt- Chapra, Roll
No.75040610
5
67. Kashinath Singh, S/O Dhupnarayan Singh, R/O Vill-
Mandipur, P.O.- Natwar Semariya, Distt- Chapra, Roll
No.75040505
68. Mukesh Yadav, S/O Dudha Nath Yadav, R/O Vill-
Dawariya, Via Gothani, Post- Tandwa, Distt- Siwan, Roll
No.76160499
69. Murari Kumar, S/O Chandramouli Singh, R/O At+P.O.
Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll No.65050448
70. Ranjan Kumar, S/O Late Virendra Singh, R/O At+P.O.-
Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll No.65080299
71. Jay Shankar Singh, S/O Surya Singh, R/O Vill- Fakuli,
P.S.- Awatarnagar, Distt- Saran, Roll No.75040210
72. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Son Of Devendra Prasad Singh, R/O
Vill- Fatehpur, P.O. & Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61170202
73. Manoj Kumar, S/O Ramesh Prasad, R/O Vill- Bajruhan,
P.O. Vedwani Nagar, Distt- Bhojpur (Ara) Roll
No.66200231
74. Ravindra Kr.Singh, S/O Satyanarayan Singh, R/O Vill-
Damodarpur, P.O. Amba, P.S. Shahkund, Distt- Bhagalpur,
Roll No.87020287
75. Pravin Kr.Yadav, S/O Basudev Prasad, R/O Vill-
Shahpur, P.O. Panchrukhi, P.S. Shahkund, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.87300079
76. Abhimanyu Kr.Singh, S/O Manoj Pd.Singh, R/O Vill-
Shahapur Barant, Post- Jalalpur, P.S. Patori, Distt-
Samastipur, Roll No.80030274
77. Abhishek Singh, S/O Triloki Nath Singh, R/O C/O
Prabhunath Mishra, Arare Moad, Wsest In The Front Of
Patel Residence, Gopalganj, Roll No.77050321
78. Sanjeev Kumar, S/O Chandrama Singh, R/O Vill- Tandawa,
P.O. Dewa, P.S. Kadirganj, District- Patna, Roll
No.60420139
79. Kumar Rohan, S/O Sri Uday Shankar Singh, R/O Vill-
Anchacha, P.S. Daudbagar, Distt- Aurangabad, Roll
No.64050589
80. Piyoosh Kumar, S/O Shishir Kumar Pandey, Residence Of
Vill- Maghra, P.O. Maghra, P.S. Deepnagar, Distt-
Nalanda (Bihar), Roll No.61050452
81. Nand Kishore Singh, S/O Chaudhary Singh, R/O Vill-
Khalaspur (Gangapur) P.S. Sadokhar, P.S. Chanari, Distt-
Rohtas, Roll No.69010113
82. Kishor Kunal, S/O Basudeo Singh, R/O Vill- Jagdishpur
Mathiya, P.O Shahar Telpa, P.S. Karpi, Distt- Arwal,
Roll No.62070052
83. Ravi Shankar Sharma, S/O Saryug Singh, R/O Vill+ Post
- Birhidilt, Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61180312
84. Akhilesh Kumar Pathak, S/O Sri Binodanand Pathak, R/O
Vill+P.O. Marwa, P.S. Bihpur, Distt- Bhagalpur,
R.No.87280247
85. Chandan Kumar, S/O Birendra Upadhyay, Vill- Sikariya,
P.O.- Muksudpur, P.S. Tekari, Gaya (Bihar), Roll
No.62140408
86. Saurav Kumar, S/O Ramendra Kumar Singh, Vill-
Matiyara, P.O. Kayamnagar, P.S. Koilwar, Bhojpur, Roll
No.68180123 ............... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selectio Board (Constable Recruitment)
Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board
6
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
.................. Respondents
With
CWJC No.504 Of 2011
1. Prakash Kumar Badal, S/O Sri Amresh Kumar Singh,
R/O Village-Laranpur, P.O.-Laranpur, P.S.-Islampur,
District-Nalanda, Roll No.-61200039.
2. Mahesh Paswan, S/O Late Chhotan Paswan, R/O Village-
Imampur, P.O.-Badaila, P.S.-Bajirganj, District-Gaya,
Roll No.-62040755.
3. Arbind Kumar, S/O Sri Mukhlal Paswan, R/O Village-
Dwarika, P.O.-Utali Bara, P.S.-Bajirganj, District-Gaya,
Roll No.-62060587.
4. Bhola Kr. Manjhi, S/O Late Damodar Manjhi, R/O Village-
Kaji Bigha, P.O.-Tankuppa, P.S.-Bajirganj, District-
Gaya, Roll No.-62040756.
5. Jyoti Kumari, W/O Puspendra Kr.Bibhuti, R/O
Village+P.O.-Belkhara, P.S.-Karpi, District-Arwal, Roll
No.-62260383.
6. Prashant Raj, S/O Sukhdev Sah, R/O Village-Jahangir
Pursham, P.O.-Azampur, P.S.-Desari, District-Vaishali,
Roll No.-71120024.
7. Dhananjay Kumar, S/O Mithlesh Prasad, R/O Village-Tetua
Bigha Par, P.O.+P.S.-Atari, District-Gaya, Roll No.-
62321503.
8. Mukesh Kumar Pal, S/O Nand Jee Bhagat, R/O
Village+P.O.-Rahathua, P.S.-Brahmpur, District-Buxar,
Roll No.-67100195.
9. Ramashish Yadav, S/O Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, R/O
Village-Nirmal Bigha, P.O.+P.S.+District-Aurangabad,
Roll No.-64010067.
10.Santosh Kr. Pandit, S/O Sri Mohan Pandit, R/O Village-
Dharmdiha, P.O.-Sondiha, Dharmdiha, P.S.-Barahat,
District-Banka, Roll No.-88020441.
11.Lalbahadur Shastri, S/O Late Anandi Prasad, R/O
Village-Madachh, P.O.-Sohsarai, P.S.-Nursarai, District-
Nalanda, Roll No.-61150014.
12.Virendra Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Ratan Ram, R/O Village-
Mahaddipur, P.O.+P.S.-Paraiya, District-Gaya, Roll No.-
62200151.
13.Dhirendra Kumar Ray, S/O Sri Kailash Ray, R/O Village-
Prabhat Nagar, P.O.-Bhairab, P.S.-Makhdumpur, District-
Jehanabad, Roll No.-63080262.
14.Sweta Kumari, D/O Arun Singh, R/O Village-Usri,
P.O.+P.S.-Tarwara, District-Siwan, Roll No.-76170432.
15.Arbind Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Swarup Das, R/O Village-
Jamari Asharam, P.O.-Prodram, P.S.-Cheraki, District-
Gaya, Roll No.-62011189.
16.Hemchand Sirohi, S/O Sri Binod Ram, R/O Village-Baghi
Hari Narayan, P.O.-Baghi, P.S.-Maniyari, District-
Muzaffarpur, Roll No.-70350150.
17.Rajkishore Pal, S/O Shivshankar Prasad, R/O Village-
Maujampur, P.O.-Mahulighat, P.S.-Krishangard, District-
Bhojpur (Arah), Roll No.-66240868.
18.Pradip Kr. Singh, S/O Sri Suvelal Singh, R/O Village-
Dudha Dhari, P.O.-Motipur, P.S.-Karjhain, District-
Supaul, Roll No.-83020440.
7
19.Shakti Kr. Gupta, S/O Ganga Prasad Gupta, R/O Village-
Meyari Bazar, P.O.-Meyari Bazar, P.S.-Nokha, District-
Rohtas, Roll No.-68150196.
20.Dhananjay Kr. Singh, S/O Sri Vijay Shankar Singh, R/O
Village+P.O.-Meyari Bazar, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas,
Roll No.-68040508.
21.Md.Agasar Imam, S/O Md.Ijarul Haq, R/O
Village+P.O.+P.S.-Chandaur, West Tola Siwan, District-
Siwan, Roll No.-76030190.
22.Vikram Kumar, S/O Sri Sanatan Kumar Singh, R/O Village-
Katariya, P.S.-Kursela, District-Katihar, Roll No.-
89010546.
23.Santosh Kumar, S/O Sri Vikesh Kumar Paswan, R/O
Village-Bardaha, P.S.+P.O.-Khodaganj, District-Nalanda,
Roll No.-61090593.
24.Mila Kumari, W/O Sri Prasant Kumar, R/O Village-
Senduari, Via-Rajapakar, P.S.-Hajipur, District-
Vaishali, Roll No.-71170100.
25.Gudiya Kumari, D/O Sri Gopal Chaudhari, R/O Village-
Sangrampur, P.O.-Gorgama, P.S.-Shahpur Patori, District-
Samastipur, Roll No.-80050101.
26.Sharmila Kumari, D/O Ishwari Prasad Yadav, R/O Village-
Kharkhura Valuat Gaya, P.O.-R.K.Gaya, P.S.-Delha Gaya,
District-Gaya, Roll No.-62260326.
27.Dimpal Chawla, S/O Arun Kumar Chawala, R/O Village-
Kailan Ganj, P.O.-Sasaram, P.S.-Sasaram, District-
Rohtas, Roll No.-69200181.
28.Amit Kumar Pandit, S/O Suresh Pandit, R/O Village-
Dharahara, P.O.-Dharahara, P.S.-Gopagpor, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.-89050255.
29.Arun Kumar Singh, S/O Kanhaiya Singh, R/O Village+P.O.-
Ishwarpura, P.S.-Shahpur, District-Bhojpur, Roll No.-
60380011.
30.Rajiv Kumar, S/O Kanhaya Harijan Das, R/O Village-
English, P.S.-Mairwa, District-Siwan, Roll No.-76030224.
31.Mukesh Kumar, S/O Sri Devnarayan Prasad Yadav, R/O
Village-Jhajha Durga Mandir Chauk Purani Bazar Jhajha,
P.O.+P.S.-Jhajha, District-Jamui, Roll No.-93050022.
32.Arbind Kumar, S/O Sri Surendra Singh, R/O Village-
Dubhki, P.O.-Arioan, P.S.-Krishna Bram, District-Buxar,
Roll No.-60300049.
33.Dharamraj Prasad, S/O Sri Babulal Ram, R/O Village-
Bahiro, P.O.-Nawada, Ara, District-Bhojpur, Roll No.-
66020337.
34.Binod Kumar, S/O Sri Kameswar Yadav, R/O Village-
Manshapur, P.O.+P.S.-Karjain Baj, District-Supaul, Roll
No.-83040414.
35.Sunil Kumar Vishwas, S/O Sri Narayan Vishwas, R/O
Village-Kushiyar Gauv, P.O.-Rampur Kodarkatii,
P.S.+District-Arariya, Roll No.-86030033.
36.Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Dharam Paswan, R/O Village+P.O.-
Saraba, P.S.-Barbigha, District-Sekhpura, Roll No.-
91010460.
37.Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Raghunandan Thakur, R/O
Village+P.O.-Saraba, P.S.-Barbigha, District-Sekhpura,
Roll No.-91020152.
38.Manish Kumar, S/O Sri Krishnandan Bhagat, R/O Village-
Dhanpur, P.O.-Bhatta, P.S.-Kashichak, District-Nawada,
Roll No.-65030274.
8
39.Haresh Kumar, S/O Sri Ramprit Ram, R/O Village+P.O.-
Birandipur, P.S.-Jandaha, District-Vaishali, Roll No.-
71210054.
40.Yashwant Kumar Das, S/O Sri Bishnupat Ram, R/O
Village+P.O.-Birandipur, P.S.-Jandaha, District-
Vaishali, Roll No.-71090479.
41.Ajay Singh, S/O Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, R/O
Village-Jamunapur, P.O.-Katisaray, P.S.-Bihara,
District-Patna, Roll No.-760590179.
42.Sangita Kumari, W/O Anupam Kumar, R/O
Village+P.O.+P.S.-Devi Sthan, Varshaliganj, District-
Nawada, Roll No.-65090154.
43.Sandip Kumar, S/O Sri Lalmohan Prasad Singh, R/O
Village-Chandpur, P.O.-Mahaddipur, P.S.-Sajor, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.-87200420.
44.Somesh Kr. Bhola, S/O Sri Dev Vilash Prasad, R/O
Village-Lakhanpur, P.O.+P.S.-Chanchaura, District-Gaya,
Roll No.-62280321.
45.Hemant Kumar, S/O Sri Hira Lal Mandal, R/O Village-
Katpur, P.O.-Navagari, P.S.-Naya Ram Nagar, District-
Munger, Roll No.-90070054.
46.Gautam Kumar, S/O Sri Bhuneshwar Gupta, R/O Village-
Erdiyavad, P.O.-Muffasil, P.S.-Jankinagar, District-
Munger, Roll No.-90290053.
47.Skand Singh Patel, S/O Sri Subash Singh, R/O
Village+P.O.+P.S.-Sonhar, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua),
Roll No.-69040227.
48.Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Ramji Manjhi, R/O Mohalla-A.S.I.,
Flat No.3, Block-A, P.S.-Sachivalay Thana, Patna, Roll
No.-60430431.
49.Kumar Gaurab, S/O Sri Ram Bilash Sah, R/O Village-
Basara, P.O.+P.S.-Chela Bihar, District-East Champaran,
Roll No.-74060466.
50.Suman Bharati, S/O Sri Lala Prasad, R/O Vill+P.O.-
Narayanpur, P.S.-Telhara, District-Nalanda, Roll No.-
61160109.
51. Vinod Kumar, S/O Krishna Yadev, R/O Vill-Upthu, P.O.
Dehari, P.S. Gaya, Distt- Gaya, Roll No.60530125
52. Randhir Kr.Singh, S/O Sri Gokul Raya, R/O Vill-
Manoharpur, P.O. Manoharpur, P.S. Patna, Distt- Patna,
Roll No.60750105
53. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, S/O Sri Kapildeo Thakur, R/O Vill-
Pheku Bigha, P.O. Jalpura, P.S. Arwal, Distt- Arwal,
Roll No.62270361
54. Sateesh Kumar Sah, S/O Sri Shiv Pujan Sah, R/O Vill-
Mahodipur, P.O.+P.S. Majhowlia, Distt- West Champaran,
Roll No.74010034
55. Chhedi Prasad Singh, S/O Sri Mahendra Singh, R/O Vill-
Laxuman Bigha, P.O. Badihashankar Puri, P.S. Indarpuri,
Distt- Rohtas, Roll No.68130363
56. Kamlesh Kumar Mandal, S/O Sri Manik Chand Mandal R/O
Vill- Bishanatha, P.O. Ekamba, P.S. Jalal Garh, Distt-
Purnia, Roll No.84030095
57. Ranjan Kumar Mandal, S/O Sri Sukdeo Pd.Mandal, R/O
Vill- Borawa, P.O.- Khagara, P.S. Prawatta, Distt-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.89020014
58. Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Keshav Ram, R/O Village- Baraka
Lauhar, P.O. Pharana, P.S. Barhara, Distt- Bhojpur,
R.No.66150860
9
59. Md.Kurban Alam, S/O Md.Jalil Shekh, R/O Vill-
Rasulpur, P.O. Samardiha, P.S. Sasaram, Distt- Rohtas,
R.No.69190669
60. Rakesh Kumar Roshan, S/O Sri Hiralal Ram, R/O Vill-
M.Kouri, P.O. M.Kouri, P.S. Parasa, Distt- Saran,
R.No.75370231
61. Sumit Suman, S/O Sri Anandi Prasad, R/O Vill- Varawan,
P.O. Bhadokhara, P.S. Mufassil, Distt- Nawada, Roll
No.65011071
62. Winod Kumar, S/O Sri Krishna Yadav R/O Vill- Nayranga,
P.O. Buniyadganj, P.S. Muffasil, Distt- Gaya, Roll
No.62011909
63. Jitendra Kumar, S/O Sri Gurusahay Pd. Yadav, R/O
Village- Konjyapar, P.O.+P.S. Nawada, Distt- Nawada,
R.No.65030082
64. Pradeep Kumar, S/O Sri Kari Prasad Yadav, R/O
Villo+P.O. Gadhiya, P.S. Saharsa Kacheri, Distt-
Saharsa, R.No.81010313
65. Satish Kumar, S/O Sri Chotelal Prasad, R/O Vill-
Saluganj, P.O. Bhadokhra, P.S. Mufassil, Distt- Nawada,
Roll No.65090227
66. Ravikant Kumar, S/O Sri Jeevnarayan Paswan, R/O Vill-
Indrapur, P.O. Solhanda, P.S. Makhdumpur, Distt-
Jehanabad, Roll No.63010084
67. Arvind Kumar Ram, S/O Late Chhathu Ram, R/O Vill-
Niranpur, P.O. Kateya, P.S. Bihiya, Distt- Bhojpur, Roll
No.66080761
68. Dhananjay Kumar, S/O Sri Jagdish Chandra Singh, R/O
Vill- Gorhiyari, P.O. Satdpur, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.87300084
69. Nirbhay Kumar, S/O Sri Ramdahin Singh, R/O Vill-
Nargada, P.O.+P.S. Danapur, Distt- Patna, R.No.60050118
70. Amit Kumar Pandit, S/O Sri Suresh Pandit, R/O
Vill+P.O.- Darahara, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt- Bhagalpur,
Roll No.89050255
71. Surendra Kumar, S/O Sri Nanhaku Chaudhari, R/O Vill-
Nad, P.O.- G.B.Kenduya, P.S. Sirdala, Distt- Nawada,
Roll No.65040065
72. Dinesh Kumar, S/O Sri Mahesh Das, R/O Vill- Near
Girihinda, P.O.+P.S. Mahadebi Hostel, Distt.- Shekhpura,
Roll No.91040372
73. Satrudhan Kumar, S/O Saryug Yadav, R/O Village -
Shahpur, P.O. + P.S. Badauli, District Aurangabad
Roll No.64100009.
74. Sudhir Kumar, S/O Sri Kant Prasad, R/O Vill. Rajendra
Nagar, P. O. + P.S. Nawada, District Nawada, Roll
No.65050042.
75. Santoo Kumar, S/O Sri Laldeep Prasad, R/O Vill.
Nimchak, P.O. Bathani, P.S. Nimchak Bathani, District
Gaya, Roll. No.72020109.
76. Mukesh Kumar Verma, S/O Sri Baidya Nath Mahto, R/O
Vill. - Tenua, P.O. Dhamar, P.S. Ara Mufassil, District
Bhojpur, Roll. No.66300269.
77. Vijay Shankar Yadav, S/O Sri Rajgrihani Singh, R/O
Village + P.O. + P.S. Mu-Urda Chenari, District Rohtas,
Roll No.69010760.
78. Pramind Kr. Yadav, S/O Sri Bachcha Ji Yadav, R/O
Village Padminiya, P.O. Mahuli Ghat, P.S. Krishnagarh,
District Bhojpur, Roll No.66010280.
10
79. Vipin Kumar, S/O Sri Jagdish Ram, Village
Raghunathpur, P.O. Motha, P.S. Karakat, District Rohtas
Ro. No. 68050913.
80. Munna Kumar Pal, S/O Sri Rajayan Bhagat, R/O Village
Barap, P.O. Bagwan, P.S. Garhani, District Bhojpur
Roll No.68120636.
81. Mantu Mishra, S/O Sri Ramdev Mishra, R/O Vill. + P.O.
Sonbarsa, P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur, Roll
No.60540057.
82. Chandan Prasad Singh, S/O Sri Ambika Prasad Singh, R/O
Vill. Chandi, P.O. Amaura, P.S. Karat, District Rohtas,
Roll No.68010737.
83. Harendra Kumar Ram, S/O Sri Vansbahadur Ram, R/O
Village Semara, P.O. Anagrah Nagar, P.S. Mairava,
District Siwan, Roll No.76070671.
84. Ravindra Baitha, S/O Sri Moti Lal Baitha, R/O Vill. +
P.O. Chakari, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan, Roll
No.76240249.
85. Shubash Pal, S/O Sri Baramdev Pal, R/O Village + P.O.
Revatipur, P.S. Suhawal, District Gajipur (U.Pradesh),
Roll No.70310086.
86. Atama Yadav, S/O Shivdhani Yadav, R/O Vill. Gorari,
P.O. Vishunpara, P.S. Baburi, District Chandauli,
(U.Pradesh) Roll No.70180178.
87. Santosh Pal, S/O Bhagelu Pal, R/O Vill. + P.O.
Revatipur, P.S. Suhaval, District Gajipur (U. Pradesh)
Roll No.71190101.
88. Pankaj Kumar, S/O Prabhu Prasad, R/O Village -
Barahara, P.O. Bari Malia, P.S. Gogri, District
Khagaria, Roll. No. 94010705.
89. Manoj Kumar Pandit, S/O Sri Nageshwar Pandit, R/O
Village Manic Chand Chakla, P.O. + P.S. Raghopur,
District Supaul, Roll No.83060129.
90. Seema Kumari, D/O Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, C/O Sukhdeo
Roy, Resident Of Village Khajpura, P.O. B.V. College,
P.S. Airport, District Patna Roll No.60140327.
91. Manti Kumar, S/O Sri Sanjay Pd. Chourasiya, R/O Vill.
Kamalpur, P.O. Khagaria, P.S. Khagaria, District
Khagaria, Roll No. 94010387.
92. Ghanshyam Kumar, S/O Sri Sachchidanand Pd. Singh, R/O
Village + P.O. Vadash, P.S. + District Khagaria, Roll
No.94110299.
93. Amit Kumar Singh, S/O Amar Nath Singh, R/O Village
Amharua, P.O. Atarsan, P.S. Chainwa, District Siwan
Roll No.75390105.
94. Adarsh Kumar, S/O Sri Aniruddh Singh, R/O Village
Chainpur, P.O. Sillanja, P.S. Bellaganj, District Gaya,
Roll No. 62011796.
95. Alok Kumar, S/O Uday Prasad, R/O Village Sherpur, P.O.
Mohammadpur, P.S. Asthawan, District Nalanda, Roll
No.61170376.
96. Ritu Kumari, D/O Sri Satyendra Jha, R/O Village
Harnathchak, P.O. Singhiya Makandpur, P.S. Naugachhia,
District Bhagalpur Roll No.89040176.
97. Pooja Kumari, D/O Sri Satyanarayan Singh, R/O Village
Parariya, P.O. Arihu, P.S. Dawth, District Rohtas, Roll
No.68150612.
98. Umesh Ram, S/O Sri Harendra Ram, R/O Village Belowan
P.O. Belowan, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan Roll
No.76020304.
11
99. Shivram Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Ram Binod Singh, R/O
Village + P.O. Chapar P.S. Mohiuddin Nagar District
Samastipur Roll No.80080237.
100. Kunal Kishor Prasad, S/O Sri Shambhu Sharan Prasad,
Resident Of Village + P.O. Bhadani Nagar, P.S. Patratu,
District Ramgrah, Roll No.70310148.
101. Prakash Chandra Yadav, S/O Sri Ramji Yadav, R/O
Village Gadaipur, P.O. Gahamar, District Gajipur (U.P.)
Roll. No.70200277.
102. Manish Kumar, S/O Sri Jaynath Prasad, R/O Village
Agama, P.O. Agama, District Supaul Roll No.60160385.
103. Dhananjay Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Pravesh Singh, R/O
Village Shripur, Thana Belaganj, District Gaya Roll
No.62230082.
104. Sujit Kumar, S/O Sri Kedar Pasvan, R/O Village
Saraba, P.O. Saraba, P.S. Barbigha, District Shekhapura
Roll No.91040155.
105. Kamal Kishor, S/O Sri Harelal Prasad, R/O Vill.
Barakalohar, P.O. Pharana, P.S. Barahara, District
Bhojpur, Roll No.66150195.
106. Ramvishun Yadav, S/O Sri Radheshyam Yadav, R/O
Village + P.O. Chaki, P.S. Brahmpur, District Baxar,
Roll No.67200167.
107. Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Krishna Yadav, R/O Vill. Ukhra,
P.O. Nehusha, P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda, Roll
No.61190353.
108. Suraj Kumar, S/O Sri Upendra Prasad, R/O Vill.
Kalyanpurbali, P.O. Jagatpur, P.S. Chandi, District
Nalanda, Roll No.61151255.
109. Muneshwar Prasad Yadav, S/O Sri Bashi Shtha, Narayan
Yadav, R/O Village Parawchak, P.O. Telialaugain, Via-
Amarpur, P.S. Fullidumar, District Banka, Roll
No.88090315.
110. Golden Kumar, S/O Ashok Thakur, R/O Vill. Ahirauli,
P.O. Ahirauli, P.S. Interial Aria (Baxar), District
Baxar, Roll No.67180793.
111. Birendra Kumar, S/O Satnarayan Shah, R/O Vill. + P.O.
Rajpur, P.S. Pipara, District Supaul, Roll No.83050626.
112. Krishna Kumar Yadav, S/O Sri Shivdas Yadav, R/O Vill.
Deomalpur, P.S. Sahpur, District Bhojpur, Roll
No.67060102.
113. Ribha Kumari, D/O Awdesh Singh, R/O Vill.
Pahdaypatty, P.S. Mufassil Buxar, District Buxar,
Roll No.67100327.
114. Rajesh Kumar, S/O Sri Vishwanath Yadav, R/O Vill. +
P.O. Piania, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur, Arrah,
Roll No.66300005.
115. Gudiya Kumari, W/O Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, R/O
Vill. + Post Amaithi, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya
Roll. No.62110315.
116. Sunita Kumari, W/O Sri Satyendra Kumar, R/O Vill.
Kewala, P.O. Kadhariya, P.S. Vajirganj, District Gaya,
Roll No.62020846.
117. Govinda Kumar, S/O Sri Ranjit Sah, R/O Vill. High
School Road Marhowrah (Pakaha), P.O. + P.S. Marhowrah,
District Saran, Roll No.75210439.
118. Satyendra Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Raj Kishor Singh, R/O
Village Bhatauli, Post Bhatauli, P.S. Nawana Gar,
District Buxar, Roll No.67040033.
12
119. Krishandeo Kr. Singh, S/O Yogendra Pd. Singh, R/O
Vill. + P.O. Sadhua, P.S. Rangra Chowk, Via Naugachia,
District Bhagalpur, Roll No.89020248.
120. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, S/O Shyam Singh, R/O Vill. +
P.O. Sadhua, P.S. Gopalpur, Via Naugachia, District
Bhagalpur, Roll No.89050047.
121. Priyanshu Raj, S/O Sakal Singh, R/O Vill. + Post
Madrouni, P.S. Gopalpur, Via Naugachia, District
Bhagalpur, Roll No.89020194.
122. Dhananjay Kumar, S/O Brijnandan Thakur, R/O Village
Jiva Bigha, P.O. Kataiya, P.S. Amaba, District
Aurangabad, Roll No.64050270.
123. Ramesh Kr. Sharma, S/O Kailash Sharma, R/O Vill. +
Post Malhara, P.S. Dev, District Aurangabad, Roll
No.64030336.
124. Alpana Shahi, D/O Nagendra Pratap Shahi, R/O Vill. +
P.O. Khampar, District Devariya (U.P.) Roll No.70040203.
125. Mirapa Kumari, D/O Prashant Kumar, R/O Vill.
Senduwari, P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali,
Roll. No. 71170100.
126. Udit Kr. Paswan, S/O Suresh Prasad, R/O Vill. Satar,
P.S. Mali, District Aurangabad, Roll No.64160126.
127. Satyendra Kumar, S/O Vinay Singh, R/O Vill. + P.O.
Dumari, P.S. Phatuha, District Patna Roll No.60600492.
128. Madhav Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Shahi, R/O Vill. Akhouri
Ghat, Saryug Das Math, P.S. + District Muzaffarpur,
Roll No.70080088.
129. Mikki Kumari, D/O Mahesh Pd. Singh, R/O Vill. + P.O.
Ibrahimpur, P.S. Gayghat, District Muzaffarpur, Roll
No.70090113.
130. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Rajvanshi Yadav, R/O Mohalla
Khaspur, P.O. Kachchi Dargah, P.S. Didarganj, Patna,
Roll No.60610234.
131. Upendra Kr. Shah, S/O Aganidev Shah, R/O Vill. New
Balti Loha Tola, P.O. Inai, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Chapara,
Roll No.75380328.
132. Ajit Kr. Singh, S/O Upendra Narayan Singh, R/O Vill.
Dadpur, P.O. Keshopur, P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui,
Roll No.93060184.
133. Subodh Kr. Paswan, S/O Madan Paswan, R/O Village-
Dadpur, P.O.-Keshopur, P.S.-Jhajha, District-Jamui,
Roll No.-93070217.
134. Bhushan Kumar, S/O Devendra Pd. Singh, R/O Village-
Bariyarpur, P.O.+P.S.-Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai,
Roll No.-92080248.
135. Rohit Kumar, S/O Mahendra Singh, R/O
Village+P.O.+P.S.-Udavant Nagar, District-Bhojpur, Roll
No.-66130424.
136. Pradip Kumar Yadav, S/O Late Dinesh Prasad Yadav, R/O
Village-Sharanpur, P.O.-Dabhara, P.S.-Tarawari,
District-Arariya, Roll No.-85040178.
137. Dharmendra Baitha, S/O Mohan Baitha, R/O
Village+P.O.-Dayalpur, P.S.-Janata Bazar, Chapra,
District-Chapra, Roll No.-75440011.
138. Ram Naresh Rajak, S/O Bhuyali Rajak, R/O Village-
Laheji, P.O.-Shahar Kola, P.S.-Basantpur, District-
Siwan, Roll No.-76010498.
139. Kumari Mayanku, D/O Sri Parash Nath Singh, R/O
Village-Labadi, P.O.-Sahar Kala, P.S.-Basantpur,
District-Siwan, Roll No.-76020314.
13
140. Anuj Kumar, S/O Mosaphir Prasad, R/O Village-Garai
Bigha, P.O.-Bathani, P.S.-Nimchak Bathani, District-
Gaya, Roll No.-72050631.
141. Suraj Lal, S/O Sri Bachulal Ram, R/O Village-Bukhaw,
P.S.-Sandhuli, District-Rohtas, Sasaram, Roll No.-
68130528.
142. Ramesh Dubey, C/O Brijnath Dubey, R/O Village-Nepura,
P.O.-Dumarahar, P.S.-Daravli, District-Siwan, Roll No.-
76120122.
143. Pradeep Kumar Chaubey, S/O Shardha Nand Chaubey, R/O
Village-Karhai, P.O.-Darauli Mathiya, P.S.-Darauli,
District-Siwan, Roll No.-76220101.
144. Sanoj Murmu, S/O Babullal Murmu, R/O Village-
Manikpur, P.O.-Sarkanda, P.S.-Isipur Barahat, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.-44300816.
145. Muna Kumar, S/O Kishori Saw, R/O Village-Shankar
Bigha, P.S.-Pale, District-Gaya, Roll No.-62270249.
146. Sangita Kumari, W/O Anil Singh, R/O Village-Lakhan
Tola, Post-Jitaura, P.S.-Piro, District-Bhojpur, Roll
No.-66010997.
147. Pramchand Kumar, S/O Sachidanand Pal, R/O
Village+P.O.-Raghunathpur, P.S.-Brahpur, District-Buxar,
Roll No.-6031084.
148. Ravindra Kumar, S/O Hira Bhagat, R/O Village+P.O.-
Mahawal, P.S.-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur, Roll No.-
70080685.
149. Ramashray Paswan, S/O Bikrama Paswan, R/O Village-
Sonara, P.O.-Nauhatta, P.S.-Belav, District-Kaimur
(Bhabhua), Roll No.-69080019.
150. Kumari Pinki Chaubey, W/O Putul Ji Ojha, R/O
Village+P.O.-Kaithi, P.S.-Bagen Gola, District-Buxar,
Roll No.-67180045.
151. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/O Lalan Singh, R/O Village-
Raghpur, P.O.-Raghunathpur, P.S.-Bagen Gola, District-
Buxar, Roll No.-67080015.
152. Pradip Kumar, S/O Raghunath Singh, R/O Village-
Pokharha Tola, P.O.-Pokharha, P.S.-Bagen Gola, District-
Buxar, Roll No.-67100414.
153. Shashi Kapoor, C/O Meghnath Yadav, R/O Village-
Babhangama, P.O.-Kalgiganj, P.S.-Shivnarayanpur,
District-Bhagalpur, Roll No.-87040111.
154. Mohril Yadav, C/O Suresh Yadav, R/O Village-
Parshuramchak, P.O.-Rampur, P.S.-Antichak, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.-87230170.
155. Guddu Kumar, C/O Bindeshwari Pd. Singh, R/O Village-
Sadhua, P.O.-Sadhua, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur,
Roll No.-89020082.
156. Md.Minhazul Haque, C/O Miketabul Haque, R/O At +
P.O.-Sadhua, P.S.-Rangrachok, Via-Naugachia, District-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.-89050155.
157. Kunal Kishor Prasad, C/O Shambhu Sharan Prasad, R/O
Village+P.O.-Bhadaninagar, P.S.-Patratu, District-
Ramgarh, State-Jharkhand, Roll No.70310148.
158. Santosh Pal, S/O Kuleshwar Pal, R/O Village-Bimawan,
P.S.-Jagdishpur, District-Arrah (Bhojpur), Roll No.-
66130506.
159. Arti Kumari, D/O Shambhu Narayan Singh, R/O
Village+P.O.-Pakawaliya, P.S.-Daraunda, District-Siwan,
Roll No.-76190042.
14
160. Ram Kumar Singh, S/O Krishna Singh, R/O Village-
Dharipur, Post-Haraji, P.S.-Awtar Nagar, District-Saran
(Chapra), Roll No.-75130198.
161. Brajesh Kumar Yadav, S/O Shiv Prasad Yadav, R/O
Village-Katkenwa, P.O.+P.S.-Mahuawa, Via-Chauradano,
District-East Champaran, Roll No.-73070012.
162. Ranjeet Paswan, S/O Ram Janam Paswan, R/O
Village+P.O.-Kataiya, P.S.-Deo, District-Aurangabad
(Bihar), Roll No.-62012076.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selectio Board (Constable Recruitment)
Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
.................. Respondents
With
Cwjc No.512 Of 2011
Ram Pravesh Yadav, S/O Mahendra Rai, R/O Vill-
Behahiya, P.O. Darpa, Distt- East Champaran,
Roll No.73180040 ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selectio Board (Constable Recruitment)
Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
.................. Respondents
-----------
For The Petitioners :Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh,Sr.Adv.
With Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
For The Respondent : Mr.J.P.Karn, A.A.G.9 with
Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, A.C. to
A.A.G.-9.
-----------
P R E S E N T
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanandan Singh
Jayanandan Singh,J.: Prayer of the petitioners in these writ
applications are prima facie innocuous. They have
prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider
their cases and declare their result, pursuant to
the first round of Physical Evaluation Test (for
short „PET-1‟) itself and appoint them as constables
against quota of current vacancies for Non-Home Guard
15
(N-H.G.) candidates advertised through advertisement
no.2 of 2009, published in the newspaper on
11.12.2009.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is very simple, but a very pregnant one. As per their claim, they were finally found selected and eligible for appointment after PET-1. There were sufficient numbers of candidates available after the PET-1 for appointment against the entire 50% quota (5058) of the advertised vacancies, earmarked for being filled up from N-H.G. candidates. But the respondents have declared result of only 2228 candidates after PET-1, by Annexure-4 dated 18.8.2010, leaving out the petitioners and others, and leaving out un-filled large number of the said 50% vacancies of the said quota. Therefore, the simple prayer is that all the candidates who were finally found eligible in the first round of PET-1 should be directed to be appointed on the remaining vacancies of the said quota for N-H.G. candidates.
3. This prayer of the petitioners, prima facie appearing as very simple and straight forward, is in fact an intricate one and requires this Court to go into the reasons for their non-consideration inspite of they being declared successful in the selection process held by the respondents for appointment of constables pursuant to the said advertisement. Had the petitioners raised individual grievances, in respect of marks shown to have been obtained by them in the written test or their markings in the PET-1, 16 matter would have been easier. But here the petitioners have claimed, and it is not disputed, that they had qualified in the written test and were found eligible also in the PET-1. Still they have not been appointed, although vacancies (also not disputed) were available. This required this court to have a look into the entire selection process, from no angle an easy task for this court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. But before going into further details of the selection process, the facts and figures in respect of the selection is required to be noticed first. It may be first noticed here that, through a Notification contained in memo no.6843 dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in the first case), by which certain amendments in the Bihar Police Manual were introduced, the prevailing system of selection and appointment of constables in the State by multiple Regional Boards, was substituted by selection and recommendation by a Central Selection Board (for short the „Board‟), to be constituted by the Director General of Police, in terms of and as laid down in the said Notification. It is admitted that a Board was accordingly constituted and this newly constituted Board was the body which initiated the process of selection for filling up of current 10110 vacancies of constables in State services by issue of said advertisement no. 2 of 2009 (annexure-1 with the first writ 17 application) and took up all the subsequent steps thereafter in the matter.
5. In the said advertisement, after giving out the details of vacancies of constables in different districts, reservation category-wise, in the units of District Police, Bihar Military Police, in Rail Police, in Bihar Military Police (Gorkha Division), in Women Battalion and in Cavalry Division, total current vacancies were notified as 10110. As per the break-up, this total number of 10110 vacancies comprised of 1602 vacancies for scheduled castes, 212 vacancies for scheduled tribes, 1973 vacancies for extremely backward class, 1217 vacancies for backward class, 278 vacancies for backward class (women) and 4868 vacancies for general category. It was mentioned in the advertisement that, out of these 10110 vacancies, half had to be filled up from Home Guards (H.G.), trained and registered in the State, and other half had to be filled up from open market i.e. from Non-Home Guard (N-H.G.) candidates. For both the quota of vacancies, the category-wise reservation, as laid down in Act 3 of 1992, was to apply. Hence, as per the case of the respondents, out of 10110 vacancies, 5052 vacancies were earmarked for being filled up from Home Guards and 5058 vacancies were earmarked for being filled up from N-H.G. candidates.
6. In response to the advertisement, Board received approximately 3.65 lacs applications. It may be noticed here that, as against previous procedure for selection, in which physical fitness test was the 18 only mode of selection, by amendment in the Police Manual by the said Notification, an objective type written test of class X standard, of 300 marks, with provision of negative markings, was prescribed. It has not been specifically pleaded, but it is also not denied that, for declaring the candidates to have cleared the written examination, the Board decided to apply the minimum percentage of marks prescribed for different reservation categories of candidates, as per Memo no.10258 dated 5.8.1991 of the Administrative and Personnel Reforms Department, which prescribed that, for being declared to have cleared the written examination held by B.P.S.C. or Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board, a general category candidate was to secure minimum 40% marks, whereas backward category candidate was required to secure 36.5% marks, backward Annexure-1 category candidate was required to secure 34% marks and S.C., S.T. and female candidates were required to secure 32% marks. The written test was to precede Physical Evaluation Tests, for which candidates were to be called on the basis of merit list of written test in the ratio of 1:5.
7. After the last date for receipt of applications in the Board Office, the applications received in time were scrutinized and admit cards were issued to the candidates for appearance in the written test, which was fixed for 1.5.2010, to be held at centres all over the State. The candidates, including all the petitioners, appeared and the result of examination 19 was published on 18.6.2010 in which 19616 candidates were declared as pass. Accordingly, the said 19616 candidates were called for Physical Evaluation Test (PET-1) which was held between 1.8.2010 and 17.8.2010. As per the admitted case, out of 19616 candidates, who were declared pass, only 389 were of H.G. category and the rest 19227 were of N-H.G. category.
8. PET-1 was finally completed on 18.8.2010, in which, out of 19616, only 5676 candidates were found to have cleared all the physical tests. Out of this 5676, 5545 were N-H.G. candidates (against 5058 vacancies available for them), but only 131 were H.G. candidates (against 5052 vacancies earmarked for them). Hence, the Board realized that large number of vacancies of the quota for Home Guards were going to remain unfilled because of very small number of Home Guards being successful in the written test and further lesser number of them finally clearing the physical test. They also realized that sufficient number of N-H.G. candidates had also not cleared the physical test to enable the Board to make its recommendation for filling up of all the remaining vacancies of H.G. quota from them, as per the respective reservation category, as provided in the Police Manual by the said amendment. Hence, by memo no. 695/P-2 dated 28.7.2010, guidelines were sought for from the Government in respect of procedure to be adopted for filling up of the remaining vacancies, particularly of H.G. quota. Accordingly, the State 20 Government, through letter of the Secretary, Department of Home, as contained in memo no.699 dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed in the first case), addressed to the Director General of Police, issued certain guidelines in respect of steps to be taken for filling up of remaining vacancies, with a request to him to communicate the said guidelines to the Board and ensure action accordingly and report compliance (details of the said Guidelines are dealt with in the later part of the judgment).
9. In the circumstances, following the said Guidelines, suggesting calling of names in the ratio of 1:5 for physical test, a list of 31552 more candidates were published on 13.8.2010, declaring them pass in the written test. Out of this 31552, 24641 were N-H.G. candidates and 6911 were H.G. candidates. While the process of physical test of those 31552 candidates was in progress (PET-2), Board published the result of only 2228 candidates on 18.8.2010 (as contained in Annexure-4 with the first writ application), out of 5545 who had cleared PET-1, and „put on hold‟ the result of rest 3317 successful candidates. Out of the said 2228 candidates, 2095 were of General category, 131 were Home Guards and 2 were Gurkhas. No recommendation was made in respect of 85 vacancies of General Category, although finally successful candidates were available, as, after the last candidate of the category recommended, large number of candidates had same marks in written test. 21 The candidates, whose result were declared by said Annexure-4, were directed to collect their appointment letters from the office of the Central Selection Board, upon production of their admit cards and identity cards and report to the concerned officers in the District or Battalion, as indicated in the list itself, for their joining. On an earlier date, this Court had directed the respondents to produce various chart prepared at different stages of the selection process which they produced. From the chart of 2228 candidates, who were finally declared selected on 18.8.2010, it appeared that the last candidate, who was selected for appointment in this list, had secured 120 marks in the written test.
10. As per the stand of the respondents, the reasons with them to „put on hold‟ the result of 3317 successful candidates of PET-1, who belonged to the different reserved categories, was that, after the State Government clarified, that the ratio of 1:5 had to be maintained for calling candidates for physical test, the requirement of securing qualifying marks in the written test got obliterated. Hence, candidates 5 times of the total 10110 vacancies had to be called from the top of the merit list of written test of said approximately 3.65 lacs applicants who had appeared in the test. This required the re-working out of vacancies for different reserved categories. It was visualized that, with the increase in available vacancies, due to merging of remaining vacancies of H.G. quota with the vacancies of N-H.G. 22 quota, the 50% vacancies of General category may increase. Hence, applying sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992, many reserved category candidates, who had remained in the reserved category after PET-1, due to lesser number of vacancies available at that point of time, may deserve to be shifted to general category, making room for further reserved category candidates. To justify publishing of the part of the result of the first phase of physical test (PET-1), it was contended that, since those 2228 candidates stood selected from the top of the combined merit list, irrespective of their category, they would not have got affected in any case and would have got selected either way.
11. Hence, after the second phase of Physical Evaluation Test (PET-2), of the candidates who were declared pass subsequently on 13.8.2010 on the basis of 1:5 ratio, was over by 7.10.2010, in which, out of the said 31552 candidates, 11187 candidates were found physically fit, including 1859 Home Guards, a combined list of successful candidates, by merging the successful candidates of PET-1 with that of the PET-2, was prepared. Thereafter, the total available vacancies, including the left over vacancies of the H.G. quota [barring 1990 (131+1859) H.G. vacancies, for which Home Guard candidates had become available], were also merged and the combined list was prepared and reservation policy was applied to it as per the reservation categories as laid down in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the said Act 3 of 23 1992. Thereafter another final result of 7879 candidates (excluding the earlier 2228) was published on 18.12.2010.
12. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to state that figures of candidates and vacancies, mentioned hereinabove, are based on pleadings of the respondents, in which, in course of hearing of the case, it was discovered that there were minor discrepancies. However, since the case proceeded on the broader aspects of the matter in respect of correctness or otherwise of selection process adopted by the respondents, and the changes made midway in the same and preparation of result in the light of the guidelines issued in the letter of the Secretary, Department of Home, as contained in the said Memo no.699 dated 4.8.2010, minor variations in the figures are not material for consideration of these cases. For the same reason, this Court has not proceeded to examine the individual claims of the petitioners or the intervenors, who have filed applications to intervene in the matter in support of the writ petitioners.
13. In course of hearing of the matter, it became clear that there was an agreement between learned counsels of the respective parties that the selection of Constables for appointment, pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2009, had to be made in terms of the provisions of Bihar Police Manual, as amendment by the said Notification of the Home (Police) Department dated 11.8.2008. There was also 24 unanimity amongst them that the said Advertisement No.2 of 2009 published in the newspapers on 11.12.2009, was issued in terms of the said amendment in the Bihar Police Manual by the said Notification. There was also no dispute that Guidelines were issued by the Secretary, Department of Home, addressed to the Director General of Police by the said letter dated 4.8.2010 in respect of steps to be taken for filling up of total available current vacancies. Disagreement between the parties was only in respect of changes introduced by the Board in the process for further selection of candidates, in implementation of the said Guidelines contained in the said Memo dated 4.8.2010, by merging the vacancies and merging the qualified candidates of PET-1 with those of PET-2. In the circumstances, this Court felt it appropriate to first consider the true import of the relevant provisions of the said amendments in the Bihar Police Manual, clauses of the advertisement and the spirit and tenor of the said Guidelines issued by the Government for the Board to follow for further selection of the candidates for filling up of the remaining vacancies.
14. Taking up the first item, this Court finds that the said memo no.6843 dated 11.8.2008 contains a Notification issued by the Home (Police) Department, through which, Governor of Bihar, in exercise of powers in terms of sections 55 read with section 94 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007, introduced amendments in the Bihar Police Manual. The effect of these 25 amendments was that the procedure of selection and appointment of Constables in State Services, as previously in vogue in terms of unamended provisions of the Bihar Police Manual, by Regional Recruitment Boards at Divisional levels, was given a go bye and in its place, provision was made for constitution of a Central Selection Board by the Director General of Police for selection and recommendation of candidates for appointment as constables in different districts, in different units of Military Police, in Railway police under the State and other divisions. It was laid down therein that „This Board will send recommendations of successful candidates who qualify in written examination and physical measurement test to the Superintendents of District Police / Commandants of Battalions‟. On such recommendations of the Central Selection Board, respective Superintendents of the District Police and the Commandants of Battalions were to appoint the candidates after due verification. By this Notification, the system of selection, in vogue earlier, only on the basis of physical fitness of the candidates, was also changed and, before physical tests, a written test was prescribed of the standard of Class X. It was laid down that the examination would be of objective type and of total 300 marks; there would be 100 questions in the paper of two hours duration in which 3 marks would be given for each correct answer and 1 (one) mark would be deducted for each wrong answer; answer book would be 26 in duplicate, out of which one copy would be in the form of invisible carbon copy and this would be preserved with the Selection Board and merit list of the candidates would be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the written test. It was also laid down that, on the basis of marks secured in the written test, candidates of each reserved category would be called for physical test in the ratio of 1:5, taking into account advertised/probable vacancies. It was also clarified that it would be essential to qualify in physical test but that would carry no marks and no relaxation shall be allowed in the same. Some provisions of the notification (extracted from the English version of Notification annexed as Annexure - A with the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 14742 of 2010), relevant for this case, are reproduced here below :
"(g) For each reservation category candidates will be selected in the ratio of 1:5 of published/probable vacancies on the basis of marks obtained in written examination."
"(h) Candidates selected on the basis of written examination will have to appear in physical test/measurement and it will be mandatory to qualify in the same, but no marks will be given on the basis of physical test/ measurement."
- - - -
"(m) Reservation - The provision of reservation as per The Bihar Reservation of vacancies in post and services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1991 (Bihar Act-3, 1992) (as amended from time to time) will apply.
Provided that a maximum of 50% of total vacancies of constables may be filled up by Home Guards who are trained and registered in Bihar. The 27 category-wise reservation, as per provisions of Bihar Act of 1992 reservation will also apply to fill up the vacancies of Home Guards.
Relaxation of 5 years in upper age limit in each reservation category will be given for the vacancies to be filled in by Home Guards.
In case of non availability of sufficient number of eligible Home Guard, vacancies of Home Guards quota will be filled up by the non-home guard candidates of same reservation category."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions of the Police Manual, as incorporated by the said Notification, and in the Advertisement the said provisions were reproduced almost word by word. Therefore this Court does not feel it necessary to deal with the stipulations in the Advertisement separately, except that the Advertisement contained the detailed break-up of the vacancies, district- wise, battalion-wise, unit-wise etc., with separate reservation category which has already been noticed above.
16. As noticed earlier, the respondents did not get sufficient number of candidates to fill up all the 10110 vacancies after PET-1. Although, for 5058 N-H.G. vacancies, 5545 candidates were found physically fit (but not necessarily in exact or in more numbers vis-à-vis vacancies of each reservation category), only 131 Home Guards were finally found eligible against 5052 vacancies earmarked for them. This necessitated soliciting guidelines from the Government, which were issued through the said Memo dated 4.8.2010. Since the entire issue before this 28 Court hinges upon exact spirit and tenor of the said guidelines and suggestions of the Government to the Central Selection Board, it is appropriate to reproduce the four clauses of paragraph 1 the letter, spelled out in the Guidelines, as contained in the Memo, herein itself for proper appreciation :-
"¼d½ fyf[kr ijh{kk ds i'pkr~ 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk gsrq vkeaf=r djus dk izko/kku x`g foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 6843 fnukad 11-8-2008 ds }kjk fcgkj iqfyl vf/kfu;e 2007 dh /kkjk &55] lgifBr /kkjk 94 ds v/khu iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fd;k x;k gSA vr% bldk izHkko Statutory Rule gksus ds dkj.k fdlh dk;Zikyd vkns'k esa fdlh izfrdy ckr ds jgrs gq, Hkh ck/;dkjh gksxkA dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds }kjk dk;Zikyd vkns'k ls vadksa ds vk/kkj ij tks U;wure ekin.M fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] mldk ikyu flikgh HkrhZ ds ekeys esa djus dk vkSfpR; ugha gSA QyLo:i fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij U;wure izkIrkad dh lhek dks f'kfFky djrs gq, izR;sd dksfV esa 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk gsrq cqyk;k tk;A ¼[k½ mijksDr midafMdk &d esa of.kZr jhfr ls 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa fyf[kr ijh{kk dk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djrs gq, iwoZ esa lEiUu 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij vfUre ifj.kke rqjar ?kksf"kr dj fn;k tk; rFkk 1% 5 ds vk/kkj ij fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy vfrfjDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk rqjar izkjEHk djrs gq, izFke pj.k ds vfUre ifj.kke dh ?kks"k.kk ls 30 fnuksa ds vUnj iwjh dj yh tk;A ¼x½ mDr izfØ;k esa vfUre ijh{kkQy 2 pj.kksa esa ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA fQj Hkh vfUre es/kk lwph rFkk lHkh lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ikjLifjd ojh;rk la;qDr :i ls ifjHkkf"kr dj r; dh tk;sxh] ;|fi mUgksaus vyx&vyx pj.kksa esa ?kksf"kr ijh{kk ifj.kkeksa ds vUrxZr lQyrk izkIr dh gSA ¼?k½ foKfir fjfDr;ksa dk 50 izfr'kr x`g j{kdksa dks miyC/k djk;k tk;A ;fn bruh la[;k esa x`g j{kd ;ksX; ugha ik;s tk;sa fd 50 izfr'kr dk dksVk mUgsa fey lds rks 'ks"k cph fjfDr;ksa dks lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa dks miyC/k djk fn;k tk;A bl i`"BHkwfe esa izR;sd vkj{k.k dksfV ds vUrxZr 50 izfr'kr fjfDr;ksa ds fy, x`g j{kdksa dks Hkh 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk gsrq cqyk;k tk;AÞ (emphasis supplied) 29
17. From a reading of the above extracted guidelines it appears that, (i) Government felt an element of urgency in the matter; (ii) the requirement for achiving minimum qualifying marks for candidates was suggested to be relaxed; (iii) candidates of each category, in the ratio of 1:5, were suggested to be called for physical test; (iv) final result of earlier completed physical test was suggested to be declared immediately; (v) simultaneously result of written test, on the basis of ratio of 1:5, in the manner described, was suggested to be declared; (vi) physical test of the successful candidates on the basis of 1:5 ratio was suggested to be started immediately and (vii) their physical test was directed to be completed within 30 days of the publication of final result of first phase. It was clarified that, (a) in the process, final result shall be published in two phases, but (b) the final merit list and interse seniority of the successful candidates shall be determined jointly, although they may have been declared successful separately in two phases. It was also clarified that, (c) 50% of the advertised vacancies should be made available to Home Guards; (d) if that number of eligible Home Guards are not available to fill such vacancies, the remaining vacancies may be made available to General candidates and (e) in this back ground, under each reservation category, for 50% vacancies, Home Guards also in the ratio of 1:5 be called for physical test.
18. This Court requested learned counsel for the 30 respondents to inform as to, out of the total candidates who were finally found eligible and qualified after PET-1, how many belonged to which category, whose results were „put on hold‟. On the basis of the figures available on record of the case, and supplied by learned counsel for the respondents, the following picture emerges:-
Non-HOME GUARD CATEGORY TOTAL CURRENT VACANCIES 5058 Category Vacancy Called for Cleared Result Surplus Surplus M/F PET-1(M/F) PET-1 of PET-1 Vacancy candidates General 2180+169 13424 2543 2086 457(?) =2349 (?) S. C. 747+54 1909+14 772 29 = 801 = 1923 S. T. 103+4 120 55 52 = 107 E.B.C. 909+60 1626+19 714 255 = 969 =1645 B. C. 568+41 2024+80 1397 788 = 609 =2104 B. C. 139 139 Women Gorkha 84 11 2 82 Total 5058 19227 3395 2088 557(?) 1245(?) (?) HOME GUARD CATEGORY TOTAL CURRENT VACANCIES 5052 Category Vacancy Called for Result Vacancy/ M/F PET-1(M/F) of Surplus PET-1 General 2179+169=2348 250 131 2217 S. C. 747+54 = 801 45+1=46 801 S. T. 102+3= 105 1 105 E.B.C. 908+60= 968 36 968 B. C. 568+40= 608 52+4=56 608 B. C. 139 139 Women Gorkha 83 83 Total 5052 388 131 4921 (Figures may not be exact and there may be some variations in the same).31
19. The above figures show that, in respect of N- H.G. category, in relation to the available vacancies, candidates almost in the ratio of 1:4 were successful in the written test and were called for PET-1. It was in respect of H.G. category that drastically less number of candidates were successful in relation to available vacancies for this quota. Figures also show that, after PET-1, for N-H.G. category, in fact, more candidates were found physically fit than the available vacancies. Figures also show that, in general category, available candidates were more than the available vacancies, but in some of the reserved categories, available candidates were a little less than the available vacancies. It was, in fact, in H.G. category that only 131 candidates became available against 5052 vacancies.
20. In terms of the Guidelines, as in paragraph 1(Kha) & (Gha) above, the Board was required to publish the entire result of the first phase, of all available candidates of all categories, to the extent of vacancies of each category available, and the leftover vacancies (S.C.-29, S.T.-52, E.B.C.-255, B.C.(W)-139, Gorkha-82) in the category of N-H.G. and left over candidates of PET-1 of different categories (General- 457 and B.C.-788) were to be clubbed with the left over vacancies of H.G. category, (5052-131= 4921) and then candidates of each category in the ratio of 1:5 were required to be called for physical 32 test, relaxing the minimum qualifying marks for written test. This the Board has clearly not done, although there was no conceivable impediment before it for the same. It is settled law that any procedural part of an enactment is generally considered as directory, except where in the context of its consequences it may be held otherwise, whereas the substantive part of the same enactment may be mandatory. Thus, in the Notification amending the Police Manual, holding of written test and physical evaluation test were mandatory parts, whereas calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5 was clearly a directory part. Hence, no illegality could be found in calling candidates in the ratio of near about 1:4 for PET-1 than in the ratio of 1:5, if lesser number of candidates had qualified in the written test. The observations in paragraph 1(Ka) of the Guidelines, in this regard is clearly erroneous. There was clearly substantial compliance of the provision of the Police Manual, as amended, of calling of candidates for physical test on the basis of result of written test in the ratio of 1:5. Hence holding of PET-1, in which 5545 N-H.G. finally found eligible for 5058 vacancies (but may not be strictly category-wise), was perfectly valid and legal, and the respondents were legally obliged to declare the result of all the candidates found so eligible, and recommend them for appointment, subject to availability of vacancies of the quota.
21. Now the question which requires to be 33 considered is as to whether sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 could come into play in the process of selection at the second stage also or not. It is an admitted position that, for selection of candidates and calling them for PET-1, the said provision, as well as provisions of Memo No. 10258 dated 5.8.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, prescribing for minimum percentage of marks to be secured in a competitive examination for public employment by general category candidates and different reserved category candidates, were applied by the Board, which learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also accepts as correct. For selection in the second phase for PET-2, the provisions of said Memo No. 10258 dated 5.8.1991 was relaxed by the said Guidelines dated 4.8.2010, but the Board, applied the sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 in the second phase of selection, and to prepare and publish the result of PET-2 also. Whether it could be done, is the question.
22. By Act 3 of 1992 State Government came up with a law to provide appropriate representation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes on posts and services under the State. Sub- section (1) of section 4 of the same provides that 50% of the vacancies are required to be filled up from open category on merits and 50% vacancies are required to be filled up from reserved categories. In sub-section (2), further break-up of the 50% vacancies for reserved category has been provided, 34 according to which scheduled castes were allotted 16% seats; scheduled tribes were allotted 1%; Extremely backward category was allotted 18%; backward category was allotted 12% and backward women were allotted 3% seats, totaling to 50%. Sub-section (3) lays down that, those candidates of reserved category, who are selected on the basis of their own merits, are to be counted in the general category and not in the reserved category. For better appreciation, the said sub-section (3) is reproduced herein below.:-
"(3)vkjf{kr dksfV ds mEehn~okj tks vius xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij pqus tkrs gSa] dh x.kuk [kqyk xq.kkxq.k dksfV dh 50 izfr'kr fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) dh tk;sxh u fd vkj{k.k dksfV dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) AÞ
23. The above provision shows that a reserved category candidate, who is selected on his merit, and not on account of being a reserved category candidate, is to be treated as a candidate of general category and in the 50% quota of vacancies for them. This pre-supposes that the concerned candidate has withstood the test of merit in an open competitive test held for all eligible candidates, and is declared successful along with general category candidates. It is admitted that this was done when the result of written test on merit was published and in which 19616 candidates were found to have passed. They were called for PET-1 and, from amongst those who were found physically fit, 2228 candidates were appointed, in which 2095 N-H.G. were general category candidates, which included many reserved category 35 candidates also, who had found berth in the list on their own merits.
24. Now it has to be considered whether the list of 31552 candidates, which was published on 13.8.2010, for calling them for PET-2, was on merits or not. By this list the candidates were declared successful after relaxing qualifying marks applied for the written test earlier. Out of this 31552, final result of 7879 candidates were published on 18.12.2010. The statement of learned senior Counsel for the petitioners that in this list of 7879, candidate who received up to minus sixty (-60) were also included, has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. As per the amended Police Manual, in the test of 100 questions, for every correct answer three marks (+3) was to be awarded and for every wrong answer one mark (-1) had to be deducted. The un-answered question did not carry any marks. In this manner, possible marking of the candidates in the written test could be in the following manner:-
Candidate Questions Correct Wrong Total attempted (Marks) (Marks) secured A 0 -- -- 0 B 4 1(+3) 3(-3) 0 C 8 2(+6) 6(-6) 0 D 20 5(+15) 15(-15) 0 E 40 10(+30) 30(-30) 0 F 60 15(+45) 45(-45) 0 G 80 20(+60) 60(-60) 0 H 100 25(+75) 75(-75) 0 I 10 -- 10(-10) -10 J 30 5(+15) 25(-25) -10 K 50 10(+30) 40(-40) -10 L 70 15(+45) 55(-55) -10 M 90 20(+60) 70(-70) -10 N 20 -- 20(-20) -20 O 60 10(+30) 50(-50) -20 36 P 80 15(+45) 65(-65) -20 Q 100 20(+60) 80(-80) -20 R 30 -- 30(-30) -30 S 45 5(+15) 40(-40) -30 T 70 10(+30) 60(-60) -30 U 90 15(+45) 75(-75) -30 V 40 -- 40(-40) -40 W 80 10(+30) 70(-70) -40 X 100 15(+45) 85(-85) -40 Y 80 5(+15) 75(-75) -60 Z 100 10(+30) 90(-90) -60 AA 60 -- 60(-60) -60
25. The above chart is sufficient enough to make it clear how ridiculous was the attempt of the respondents to determine the comparative merit of the candidates on the basis of negative markings, as they have claimed in Court to justify their action of invoking of the said sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992. This Court fails to comprehend as to how comparative merit could be judged between a candidate who played safe and did not answer any question or answered very few questions, though wrongly, thus secured zero marks or very little negative marks and a candidate who attempted all the questions, answered some correctly also, but answered majority of them wrongly thus securing high negative marks. In fact, the moment the requirement of securing qualifying marks was obliterated, without wiping out the negative marks of the candidates, and they were called for physical test only on the basis of ratio of 1:5, the said sub-section (3) became in-
applicable. The last sentence of paragraph 1(Ka) (QyLo:i fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij U;wure izkIrkad dh lhek dks f'kfFky djrs gq, izR;sd dksfV esa 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 37 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk gsrq cqyk;k tk;) of the said Guidelines conclusively establishes that, relaxing the minimum qualifying marks, candidates in each category had to be called in the ratio of 1:5 for physical test. Admitted having done that, and having called the 31552 candidates thus, without actual and correct reflection of their comparative merit, respondents were clearly in error in applying the said sub- section (3) of Section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 at the stage of preparing the final result.
26. As shown in the chart above, after PET-1, availability of candidates for vacancies of N.H.G. quota was almost fulfilled, except in some categories, as shown in the chart. It was the problem of shortage of candidates for almost the entire quota for Home Guards. In fact, for 5052 vacancies of the quota, respondents could get only 131 candidates after PET-1. Even after PET-2, for which, relaxing the minimum qualifying marks, candidates of Home Guard category also were called in the ratio of 1:5 which also had to be category-wise, only 1859 could clear the physical test. Thus even after all relaxation, only 1990 (1859+131) Home Guards could be available against 5052 vacancies. These vacancies, therefore, had to be transferred and filled up from N-H.G. candidates. Clear provision to meet this contingency was available in the amended Police Manual saying that ;ksX; x`g j{kd mEehnokjksa dh i;kZIr la[;k dh vuqiyC/krk dh n'kk esa x`g j{kd dksVk dh 'ks"k fjfDr;ksa dks mlh dksfV 38 ds xSj x`g j{kd mEehnokjksa ls Hkjk tk ldsxkA The last line of the paragraph 1(Gha) of the said Guidelines also made it clear by saying that bl i`"BHkwfe esa izR;sd vkj{k.k dksfV ds vUrxZr 50 izfr'kr fjfDr;ksa ds fy, x`g j{kdksa dks Hkh 1% 5 ds vuqikr esa 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk gsrq cqyk;k tk;. Hence, at all stages of the selection process, and particularly in the process of filling up of left over vacancies of H.G. category, screening and selection had to be category-wise. Therefore, at the last stage of publication of result of the second stage (PET-2), the respondents committed error in merging the vacancies of two phases, merging the candidates and shifting the candidates from one category to other category in purported compliance of sub-section 3 of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992. As held earlier the said provision was definitely not applicable in the second stage of selection.
27. So far as 85 remaining vacancies of general category of the first phase is concerned, in respect of which the respondents have taken a stand that large number of candidates had secured equal qualifying marks in the written test, it may be pointed out that there are enough guidelines in the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court to meet the situation, wherein the Courts have clearly held that, in case of equal qualifying marks being secured by two or more candidates with lesser number of vacancies being available, the date of birth is one 39 of the valid criteria for selection of the candidates for appointment on the available vacancy, out of the candidates securing equal qualifying marks. Respondents should have applied their mind to this and should have filled up the remaining 85 vacancies of general category also in the first stage itself from the successful candidates of the first phase in the manner laid down by judicial pronouncements and should not have left the vacancies unfilled to be clubbed with unfilled vacancies of Home Guards and to be taken up in the second phase of selection.
28. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the Board has committed errors in complying with the Guidelines dated 4.8.2010 issued by the Government. Clearly, the Board took into account paragraph 1(ka) of the Guidelines alone for change in procedure, but completely overlooked the letter and spirit of paragraph 1(kha) as made clear by first sentence of paragraph 1(gha). Contrary to these Guidelines, the Board wrongly published the result of half of the candidates, who had cleared PET-1, and kept half of the vacancies of N-H.G. quota vacant, inspite of availability of the candidates, and wrongly merged the vacancies as well as candidates of PET-1 with the vacancies and candidates of PET-2. Similarly, the Board committed error in applying sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 in the second phase of selection when, comparative merit position of the candidates, called in the second phase, in the ratio 40 of 1:5, was not at all discernable, as demonstrated above. The Board also committed error in misreading the provisions of the Police Manual as amended by the said Notification and the stipulation in last sentence of paragraph 1(gha) of the said Guidelines, which required the left over vacancies of Home Guards to be filled up from the candidates of that very category, as the reservation quota had already been worked out in respect of vacancies for Home Guards also, and seats for particular reservation category had also been already worked out. This Court further finds that calling of 19616 candidates found qualified in the written test for PET-1 was in substantial compliance of the requirement of calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5 and sufficient number of candidates had become available after PET-1 for filling up of almost all vacancies for N-H.G. quota, applying the reservation policy as well as said sub- section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992, which indeed were applied. Hence, there was no justification with the Board to publish result of only 2095 general category candidates (besides 131 Home Guards and 2 Gorkhas) and „put on hold‟ result of other 3317 candidates. Similarly, there was no justification with the Board to keep 85 vacancies of general category candidates unfilled on the ground of large number of candidates having secured the same marks when the date of birth of the candidate is well known accepted criterion for picking up candidates, out of those having secured same marks, for filling 41 up available vacancies.
29. In fact, it appears to this Court that prescribing negative markings in written test and for selection of candidates for appointment of police constables, was itself, perhaps not appropriate. Then relaxation of minimum qualifying marks of the written test to get more candidates, instead of removing the negative markings awarded to the candidates in the test was also, perhaps, not correct. However, since no arguments have been advanced in the case from these angles, the views expressed by this Court, as above, should not be taken as findings of this Court, but only a tentative opinion. In any case, as held above, the application of said sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 for the second phase results, treating such defective markings as reflection of comparative merit of the candidates was definitely a mistake.
30. The respondents have held the second phase of Physical Evaluation Test and have selected candidates and out of the candidates found physically fit, have already published the result of 7879 candidates on 18.12.2010. Therefore this Court does not consider it appropriate to quash the entire list on account of above discussed infractions committed by the respondents in the selection process. However, this Court directs the respondents to re-draw the final result of selected candidates on the basis of two stages of Physical Evaluation Test separately. Accordingly, result of all the remaining candidates 42 of PET-1 must be published separately and they must be recommended for appointment against remaining available vacancies of different category out of 5058 vacancies allotted to the quota of N-H.G. Thereafter only remaining vacancies out of 5058 be filled up category-wise from the candidates of respective category who may have cleared the PET-1. Similarly the remaining vacancies of H.G. category shall thereafter be filled up strictly from the candidates of respective category becoming available after PET- 2, in which the left over candidates of PET-1, who may have been found surplus, and the left over vacancies of PET-1 shall also be taken into account strictly as per their category and ranking in the merit list of written test. The separate lists in the above manner shall be drawn and finally published by the respondents within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
31. When this case was taken up on 21.9.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for interim relief. However, instead of restraining the respondents from making appointments, a Bench of this Court observed that „any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition, in so far as it may prejudice the petitioner at the time of final decision, shall not be an impediment for grant of final relief to the petitioner‟. Case was thereafter directed to be listed on 28.10.2010 for final disposal. The result of PET-2 was published on 18.12.2010 recommending 7879 candidates for 43 appointment. Thereafter, matter was taken up on 20.12.2010 when the same was brought to the notice of this Court. As the said result had been published during the pendency of the writ application, this Court directed that `vacancies shall not be filled up pursuant to the result published on 18th December, 2010‟. Hence, this Court is of the view that no right has accrued to any of the candidates declared successful and recommended by the said result dated 18.12.2010 which may have necessitated any opportunity to him of hearing in this matter. In any case, the said result dated 18.12.2010 has not been quashed by this Court and the respondents have only been directed to re-draw the results in the manner indicated, which does not prejudice any candidate at this stage.
32. Since individual cases of the petitioners and interveners have not been considered in these cases, no specific direction is being issued in respect of any of them. It goes without saying that, in the re- drawn lists of the first phase of selection or of the second phase of selection, if any of them comes within the zone of consideration, his result shall also be declared and he shall also be recommended for appointment.
33. All the writ applications, and all pending I.As. are, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
44
(Jayanandan Singh,J.) Patna High Court The 19th February,2011 AFR/Pradeep.