BRAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ applications arise out of same set of facts pertaining to selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer for which the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ,,the Commission) had issued advertisement no.1906 dated 29.11.2006 in respect of 2058 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and 74 post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). The Commission in terms of advertisement had conducted a written examination in two subjects namely General Knowledge and Civil/Mechanical Engineering on 12.7.2007 and had declared 874 candidates successful on the basis of aggregate marks secured by them in both the subjects. Subsequently the Commission had sent its recommendation on 2.4.2012 to the State Government for appointment on 800 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and 74 on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). The said recommendation however on examination by the State Government was not accepted and the matter was referred back to the Commission with certain objections in the letter dated 23.5.2012 of the Principal Secretary of the Water Resources Department requesting the Commission to make its fresh recommendation after considering the objections. The Commission, thereafter, had made a fresh recommendation on 1.6.2012, whereby and whereunder, it had confined its recommendation for appointment of 392 candidates only on the post of Junior Engineer by revising its earlier result on the basis of candidates securing minimum cut off mark in both the subjects of examination separately. The petitioners are amongst those 874- 392=482 left out candidates of the aforesaid bunch of 874 candidates in the recommended list of the Commission dated 2.4.2012 who have not found place in the revised recommendation of the Commission dated 1.6.2012 confining the recommendation in respect of only 392 candidates.

(2.) THUS , the prayer of all the 110 petitioners in these batch of nine writ applications is also one and same, namely, quashing of the letter of the Principal Secretary of the Water Resources Department dated 23.5.2012 and issuing a direction to the State Government to appoint those petitioners in terms of the earlier recommendation in their favour sent by the Commission on 2.4.2012.

(3.) THE main plank of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ applications in this regard is that when the State Government had already accepted the recommendation of the Commission in respect of advertisement no.1006 dated 26.5.2006 as also in respect of advertisement no. 1406 dated 14.8.2006 and had made appointment of 160 Junior Engineers as against the first advertisement and 210 Junior Engineer as in respect of second advertisement, there could not have been any different standard adopted either by the Commission or by the State Government in respect of the recommendation and appointment relating to advertisement of the petitioners being advertisement no. 1906 dated 29.11.2006 for the same post of Junior Engineer specially when the Commission itself in keeping with the past practice of the aforesaid two advertisements had again made its recommendation on 2.4.2012 for 800 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and 74 post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). In this regard, the petitioners have assailed the decision of the Commission of fixing the separate minimum cut-off of marks in the two subjects of written examination of General Knowledge and Civil/Mechanical Engineering and their case in this regard is that the aggregate marks secured by them in both the subjects should have been made the basis for their selection and recommendation as was in fact also done by the Commission while sending its recommendation on 2.4.2012 wherein the petitioners were shown to have secured the cut-off as prescribed in the government resolution dated 22.12.1990 and 5.8.1991 which were in vogue at the time of issuance of the advertisement of the petitioners dated 29.11.2006. Their further case in this regard is that the concept of minimum cut off of passing marks in two subjects of written examination separately on the basis of which they and others got disqualified, was both contrary to the terms of advertisement as also in teeth of the Government Resolution dated 22.12.1990.