SANJAYKUMARSINGH Vs. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition which appeared no more than an expression of resentment and pique by some of the unsucessful candidates, brings to light some disturbing facts regarding the functioning of the Bihar Public Service Commission ('the Commission' for short). The petitioners were among the two lacs six thousand candidates who took the 37th Combined Competitive Civil Service Examination conducted by the Commission. They failed to qualify on the basis of the written examination although as claimed, they had done 'extremely well'. On enquiry they discovered that contrary to the past practice there had been a centralised evaluation of the answer books of this examination. This is to say that in the past the answer books were despatched to the examiners who invariably used to be persons outside the State of Bihar, further, according to the petitioners, the selection of the examiners was made from a Hand Book complied by the Association of Indian Universities giving the names and addresses of teacLers working in all the constituent colleges in the country. This practice was followed in all the past examinations upto 36th examination. All this was, however, changed for the 37th examination, this time instead of sending the answer books to the examiners (outside the State) the examiners were summoned to a central place where all the answer books of the different subjects were examined and evalued at the same time. Some of the examiners, being local teachers were well known to a number of candidates and it could also be assumed that they (the examiners). too would have known several candidates. The petitioners further alleged that some of the persons appointed as examiners were not qualified and competent to be entrusted with the task of evaluating the answer books of this examination ; the manner in which the answer books were examined was also said to be far from satisfactory.

(2.) The grounds on which the petitioners assail the evaluation of the answer books of the 37th examination can be summarised as follows :-

(3.) Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, not failing to realise the strength (and the weakness) his case made only a passing reference to these three grounds. He, however, laid great stress on the first two grounds and questioned the competence of the Chairman to take, on his own, fundamental decisions relating to the examination, the conduct of which was the constitutional duty of the Commission Mr. Jha submitted that in the conduct of the examination, the Chairman had presumed to act as if he a lone constituted the Commission and this aberration had completely vitiated the 37th examination within the meaning of Article 320 (1) of the Constitution of India ; Article 320 (1) reads as follows :