SANJAY GANDHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a candidate who appeared in the 29th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination held for selection of Civil Judges (Junior Division). The advertisement was issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission in the year 2016. The petitioner appeared and qualified in the Preliminary Test and was called for the written test wherein he secured 356 marks. This enabled him to be called for the viva voce/ interview in which he asserts he answered the questions properly and accurately. However, having not received the minimum qualifying marks in the interview, he was not selected. The petitioner obtained only 28 marks out of 100 marks in the interview and there was a prescription that a candidate who appears in the interview has to get a minimum of 35 per cent marks for being appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner on being informed of his non-inclusion in the final select-list, filed the above writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court alleged that the prescription of the minimum marks in interview was brought in by Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2014 of the General Administration Department. This is alleged to be ultra vires, unconstitutional and invalid since the mandate of law, as contemplated under Sec. 26 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, has not been followed. The mandate according to the petitioner is that the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby. Admittedly, there was no such publication made. The petitioner before us also claimed that while a different qualifying standard was applied to the Scheduled Caste candidates, to which category the petitioner belonged, in the Preliminary and Main test, no such reduction in standard was allowed in the Interview. Such denial of a reduced standard to the reserved category also vitiates the selection, is the contention.

(3.) We heard Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission.