BINOD KUMAR PRABHASHKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna have been preferred by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10337 of 2000 (Binod Kumar Prabhashankar and Others V/s. The State of Bihar and Others), and C.W.J.C. No. 695 of 2001 (Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Others), and are directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 and 2.5.2001 respectively, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed, and the petitioners' prayer for a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), to recommend their names for appointment in the Bihar Administrative Service in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes, has been rejected.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeals may be indicated. The basic facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 10337 of 2000, except by specific reference to any other proceeding. The Commission had issued an advertisement on 31.12.1997, inviting applications for 42nd Combined Civil Services Examination. The selection process comprised of three parts. The first part was the preliminary test which was held on 29.11.1998. After scrutiny of the answer-sheets at this stage, results of 6138 candidates were published in January 1999, who were called upon to appear in the second round of the selection process known as the "Main Examination". The main examination was held in April-May 1999, and 6138 candidates had to appear at the test. On a scrutiny of their answer scripts, a combined list of 681 candidates was published on 9.10.1999. These 681 candidates were required to appear at the viva-voce test, the final stage of the selection process.

(3.) C.WJ.C. No. 10337 of 2000 was taken up as the main case and was disposed of by a learned Single Judge, and was dismissed. He came to the conclusion that the Commission had made a serious error in omitting to call the first 16 candidates of the list of the reserved category for interview. However, no fault can be found with the Commission's effort to rectify the error, as a result of which a fresh list of recommendations had to be forwarded to the State Government in supersession of the earlier recommendations. Consequently, a few persons have been appointed in the "other services", and four persons, because of their depressed position in the fresh list of recommendations, are completely out of the picture. The learned Single Judge has also examined various circumstances cited on behalf of the petitioners to discredit the Commission's effort to rectify the errors. However, the learned Single Judge on a detailed scrutiny of the circumstances, repelled the contentions and upheld the fresh list of recommendations. Hence this appeal at the instance of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10337 of 2000.