SANJIV KUMAR CHANDHARIYAVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is an Advocate, who had applied for 25th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, the examinations whereof were conducted on the 25th January 2000 to 31 St January, 2000. The Petitioner participated in the said examination. Vide Memo No. 92 dated 06th July, 2000, Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the B.P.S.C.) issued interview letter to the Petitioner. After the interview, the results were then published on 06th August, 2000 but in respect of Petitioner it was specifically mentioned that his results were withheld. Let it be noted that it was not stated that Petitioner had been disqualified, then started the controversy. Petitioner was asked to produce his testimonials in original. He claims to have produced the same. The B.P.S.C. disputes. The B.P.S.C. then published notice in the newspaper calling upon the Petitioner to produce his testimonials. This is what brought the Petitioner to this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7224 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on the 10th July, 2002 and this Court directed the Petitioner to produce all his testimonials before the B.P.S.C. Petitioner then claims that on the very next day he went to B.P.S.C. to produce his testimonials in originals but B.P.S.C. refused to look into it, as such, Petitioner filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 1456 of 2002. While the contempt application was pending, by letter dated 2nd August, 2002 B.P.S.C. held out to the Petitioner that examination of the Petitioner was impersonalized by another. What was the basis for this serious allegation was not disclosed. Once this was disclosed to the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by the present writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1792 of 2005. In response to this, Petitioner immediately protested to the B.P.S.C. as to how suddenly such a serious allegation is made. Nothing further was done. Ultimately, the contempt application was disposed of on 6.11.2003. Once the contempt application was disposed of, then on 7.1.2004 B.P.S.C. cancelled the candidature of the Petitioner on the grounds of impersonation and a paper notice to that effect was published. It is this action of B.P.S.C. which has been impugned in. the present case.

(2.) This writ petition was taken up for disposal on 31.7.2006. After a full hearing at that stage itself this Court (Barin Ghosh, J., as his Lordships then was) allowed the writ petition and set aside the B.P.S.C. notification cancelling the candidature of the Petitioner and directed B.P.S.C. to declare the results of the Petitioner as well as, if Petitioner had succeeded, as per the results, issue notification for appointment within seven days.

(3.) It appears that B.P.S.C, being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed an intra Court appeal being L.P.A. No. 576 of 2006. It appears from the proceedings of the said intra Court appeal that while the matter was being heard before the Division Bench, Petitioner was asked in the Court to be personally present and transcribe two pages, in his own handwriting in the Court itself. Ultimately, when the L.P.A. was taken up for final disposal, on behalf of B.P.S.C. it was urged that the writ Court had not taken into account the conduct of the Petitioner whereby the B.P.S.C. sought assistance of the Petitioner to verify the genuineness of the candidature, which according to the B.P.S.C, was not willingly acceded to by the Petitioner.