BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PRABHAT KUMAR ASSOCIATION OF SELECTED CANDIDATES OF 38TH COMBINED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION Vs. MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY:STATE OF BIHAR:BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated January 16, 1995 in C. W. J. C. Nos. 4505 and 4180 of 1994 relating to the 38th Combined Competitive (Main) Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for making selection for appointment to the civil services in the State of Bihar.

(2.) The said system of centralised evaluation of answer books was assailed in a writ petition filed before the Patna High Court (Sanjay Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (1994) 2 Pat LJR 414). The main ground of attack which are accepted by the High Court, was that the decision regarding change of mode of evaluation had been taken by the Chairman alone and not by the Commission and that the Chairman was not competent to take such a decision and it could be taken only by the Commission, i. e. the Chairman and all the members. Taking note of the fact that major and substantial role regarding taking of decisions was left in hands of the Chairman and that over the years no members ever objected to the conduct of examination in this manner and at the time of the 37 the examination also no member, save one, raised any objection or made any protest regarding the manner and mode in which the decisions regarding the conduct of the examination were being taken by the Chairman, the High Court held that the Commission had adopted this as the matter of conduct of examinations. The High Court, therefore, did not interfere with the result of the 37th examination. At the same time, the High Court directed the Commission to evolve a procedure for the conduct of examination which must be both reasonable and in conformity with law and that rules be framed for ensuring that the entire body of the Commission fully participate in the decision-making process on basis issues and policy matters. As regards the centralised evaluation system the High Court has observed that the reasons cited for introducing the system were indeed good and valid and one could not find any fault with them but in the concluding remarks the High Court expressed the view that "the Commission will be well advised to once again consider the question of sending the answer-books to the examiners outside the State of Bihar as this process seems to evoke greater confidence and keeps the Commissions' examination free from any controversy".

(3.) The said decision in Sanjay Kumar case (1994) 2 Pat LJR 414 (supra) was given on June 11, 1992 and by that time the process for conducting the 38th Combined Competitive Examination had commenced. The preliminary examination had been held on May 24, 1992 and the result of the said examination was declared on July 17/18, 1992. The written part of the Main examination was delayed on account of filing of writ petitions by unsuccessful candidates in the Patna High Court against the result of the preliminary examination. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court on July 29, 1993. Thereafter, on August 16, 1993, the Commission decided that the Main (written) examination would commence with effect from September 20, 1993 at Patna and Ranchi centres and that "the Question Setters/Moderators/Examiners should be of Professor/Reader rank and should be from outside the State and whose names figure in the UGC Handbook or Handbook of Association of the University Teachers and the penal thereof should be put up before the Commission for approval".