SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR TRIPATHI SON OF LATE RAJA BALI TRIPATHI, EMPLOYMENT OFFICER UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE BUREAU Vs. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 3519 of 2006, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 15.09.2006, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petitioner raises a grievance in the writ proceeding that, in view of the aggregate marks obtained by him, he ought to have been allotted to the Bihar Police service, and he has instead been recommended the job of Employment Officer.

(2.) Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") conducted the 36th Combined Competitive Examination, which was held in the year 1989. The old reservation police was in force at the time of the advertisement. The same was substituted by the new reservation policy at the time the merit list was prepared, and the recommendations were made as per the new reservation policy. This led to a large number of writ petitions in this Court which were allowed, the merit list as per the new reservation policy was set aside, and the Commission was directed to prepare a fresh merit list after applying the previous reservation policy which was in force at the time of the advertisement. Accordingly, a fresh merit list was prepared. However, the writ petitioner's position in the merit list remained the same in both the lists. In fact, the present petitioner was a petitioner in the earlier writ petition also. This is by way of background of the present writ petition.

(3.) In the fresh merit list, the petitioner has been recommended for the post of Employment Officer. He preferred the present CWJC No. 3519 2006 raising a grievance that, in view of the marks scored by him at the selection process, he ought to have been recommended for a post in the Bihar Police service, or at least for any one of the Uniformed services. It is relevant to state at this stage that the 36th Combined Competitive Examination was held for recruitment to 14 different services of gazetted officers. The Bihar Police Service, Bihar Exercise Service, and the post of Battalion Commandant, are treated to be uniformed services. Those of the candidates who have been given preference for any one of the uniformed services are separately assessed at the same viva voce test. Those of the candidates who have been given preference for non-uniformed services are separately assessed at the same viva voce test. It is further relevant to state that the candidates for the police service and the non-police service are so separately assessed at the same viva voce test, leading to a combined gradation list. Every candidate is subjected to the same uniform selection process, leading to a combined gradation list. Consequently, in view of the marks obtained by the candidate and the preferences given by them, the petitioner was recommended for the post of Employment Officer. The petitioner raises a grievance in the writ petition that he had scored total of 585.5 marks and, therefore, he ought to have been recommended for the post of Bihar police service and, in any case, he should have been recommended for the post of Battalion Commandant, and other posts in the uniformed service.