RANDIR NANDAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ applications the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to call the petitioners for interview and for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) in the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioners have also challenged the qualifications and the requirements laid down in the advertisement for selection to the aforesaid post contending inter alia that the decision of Board to award 30 marks for the viva voce test was unreasonable, and further that awarding of maximum of 30 marks for educational qualification was also unreasonable in view of the fact that a written test was being held for judging their relative merit. The writ petitions were filed at a stage when the petitioners had not been called for interview and the appointments had yet to be made. Subsequently, the writ petitions were amended when the petitioners were informed that they were disqualified from consideration for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer in view of the fact that they had violated the rules and procedure laid down for the conduct of the competitive examination. Since all the petitions raise similar questions and arise in the same factual background, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The representative facts are taken from C.W.J.C. 1441 of 1991.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that he had obtained a degree of Bachelor of Engineering and had consistently a brilliant academic record. Employment Notice 4/89 was notified by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board inviting applications in the prescribed form from eligible candidates for different posts including the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) meaning thereby Graduate Training Officer cadre. Since the petitioner was qualified for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) he applied for the same. For this post, one of the qualifications laid down was that the candidate should not be below 21 years of age and not above 42 years, and in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates not above the age of 47 years. Having regard to the age qualification, even those persons who had graduated in engineering way back in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 may have been eligible to apply. The Board also passed are solution laying down that out of maximum 100 marks, a minimum of 40 marks shall be awarded for the written rest, maximum of 30 marks for performance in the qualifying degree/diploma examination and maximum of 30 marks for viva voce test. This was despite the fact that the Government in the Department of Energy had taken a decision that where written examination was prescribed, it would not be desirable and proper to award marks on the basis of educational qualification. A direction was, therefore, issued to the Board in exercise of power under Section 78-A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 not to award marks for the educational qualification. The Government took a decision that maximum 60 marks should be awarded for the written examination and maximum of 40 marks for the viva voce test This decision of the Government has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Board, however, did not follow the directive of the State Government and reiterated its decision that it was not possible to award 60 marks for the written test and 40 marks for the interview.

(3.) Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, he was issued an admit card for taking the examination and was given Roll No. 2116. The written examination was to be held on October 7, 1990, and the center at which the petitioner was required to write the examination was the Patna College at Patna. According to the petitioner, he went to the examination centre on October 7, 1990 and found that the sitting arrangement for the examination was notified in a big chart pasted in front of the main office of the College. His Roll number was mentioned against Room No. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner went to Room No. 12 and found that outside the said room the roll numbers of the candidates who were to sit and take their examination in the said room was pasted. The petitioner found that Roll No. 2116, which was the Roll number allotted to him, was mentioned in the list. He therefore took his seat in Room No. 12 after showing his admit card to the invigilator concerned. He also found that on a desk in Room No. 12 his Roll number had been pasted. The petitioner, accordingly, took his seat in Room No. 12 and wrote his answers in that room. The question paper given to him was of the objective type. His attendance was marked by the invigilator in charge of Room No. 12, and he also put his signature on the attendance chart. The petitioner fared well at the examination and expected to be called for interview. There was no adverse report against the petitioner as to his conduct while writing the examination. However, when the list of successful candidates was published on November 16, 1990, the petitioner was surprised to find that his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. On enquiry the petitioner came to learn that persons who had secured less marks than him and who had inferior educational qualification, had been called for interview. The petitioner has referred to some of the persons so called for interview in paragraph No. 37 of the writ application. He collected such information from the office of the Secretary of Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with a grievance that while others securing lesser marks and having inferior educational qualification had been called for interview, the petitioner had not been called for interview, and this amounted to arbitrary action on the part of the authorities. The instant writ application was filed on February 25, 1991 stating that the interviews were to be held from January 25, 1991 to April 5, 1991. The petitioner prayed that having regard to the facts of the case he should be permitted to appear in the interview and be considered for appointment.