UPENDRA NARAYAN PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two letters patent appeals by the interveners arise from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10942/98 directing the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, 'the Commission') to re-determine the merit list of the candidates on the basis of the qualifying marks prescribed under the statutory rules and not on the basis of the resolution dated 22.12.1990. Certain interim orders were passed in the appeals, by one of which dated 2.3.2000 in LPA No. 1328/99 (disposed of earlier as not pressed) the Court had observed that the successful candidates may be appointed in accordance with law. The MJG has been filed for clarification of the term "successful candidates".

(2.) THE dispute relates to appointment on the post of Drug Inspector. THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 19.10.1997 an advertisement was published by the Commission inviting applications for appointment on 215 posts of Drug Inspector. On 14.8.1998 by notification as contained in Annexure-7 to the connected writ petition, syllabus etc. were prescribed for the written test and viva voce test. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the recruitment rules titled "Bihar State Drug Inspectors Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989 (in short 'the Rules'), recruitment on the post is to be made on the basis of competitive test comprising of written and viva voce tests. 384 candidates in all appeared at the written test out of whom 39 candidates were declared successful vide result published in the newspapers on 27.11.1998, it is for quashing of the said result of the written test that the connected writ petition, CWJC No, 10942/98, was filed by Pravin Kumar Thakur and others. According to the writ petitioners, the result of the so-called successful candidates was prepared on the basis of the qualifying marks fixed under resolution dated 22.12.1990, contrary to the statutory rules. Whereas under the rules, vide Rule 12, only such of the candidates securing 40% marks in General category and 35% marks in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category are to be called for the viva voce test, under the said resolution dated 22.12.1990 qualifying marks of 36.5% in the Backward Class category and 34% in the Backward Class (Annexure-1) category was fixed. It was on that basis that the candidates of the Backward Class category were declared successful at the written test and called for the viva voce test According to the writ-petitioners the qualifying marks having been fixed by statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government should not have fixed lower marks which amounted to reduction of the qualifying marks fixed under statutory rules by an executive order. THE writ petitioner raised certain other contentions as well which were rejected by the learned Single Judge. THE learned Judge held, inter alia, that the petitioners having participated in the selection could not be allowed to assail the result of selection after being unsuccessful at the written test. THE learned Single Judge also rejected the contention of the writ-petitioners that as no provision had been made in the recruitment rules or advertisement, benefit of reservation could not be extended to the candidates of Backward Class category. THE learned Judge noticed the provisions of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (in short 'the Reservation Act') and held that the State Government was competent to extend the benefit of reservation to the candidates of not only Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes but also Backward Classes. THE learned Judge in this connection also noticed the provisions of Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules in terms of which while recommending the names of the candidates the Commission is required to take into consideration the reservation rules applicable from time to time. Since, the learned Judge observed, by virtue of the provisions of the Reservation Act the benefit of the reservation has already been extended to the Backward Classes, it would not be correct to contend that the Government resolution dated 22.12.1990 extending the benefit of reservation to them was in conflict with the statutory rules.

(3.) WE heard the submissions of the learned Counsel on behalf of the intervenor-appellants, the State and the Commission. None appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners. Apparently, their challenge to the result of the written test having gone in vain, they have lost interest in the outcome of these appeals. The stand of the State and the Commission being the same as the intervenor-appellants, the hearing was a one-sided affair.