ANIRUDH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to include the name of petitioner within top ten of the merit list of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Plant Protection Officer (Instructor) Plan Protection Surveylians Officer in Bihar Agriculture Service Category V. Precisely, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was M. Sc. (Agriculture) and he had also done certain research work and pursuant to advertisement no. 29 of 1989 which, was advertised to fill up the posts of Junior Plant Protection Officer (Instructor) Plant Protection Surveylians Officer in the Bihar Agriculture Service Category V, he applied for the post aforesaid. Consequently he was allowed to appear in the written competitive examination. In the written examination he was successful and thereafter he was called for interview and after interview, 13 persons were recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in 1998 for appointment on the post aforesaid but the name of the petitioner was not recommended. It is further submitted that the petitioner has reason to believe that owing to his educational qualification he has faired well and he has secured sufficiently higher marks but somehow or the other his name was not recommended by the Commission for appointments.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially ten posts were advertised and names of thirteen persons were recommended by the Commission contrary to the advertisement and this shows that things were manipulated at the level of Commission to accommodate certain persons.