SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Cluster of the petitioners in both the cases are represented through Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners with M/s Ritika Rani, learned Advocate. The Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission is represented through Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 appears on behalf of the State.

(2.) The entire selection process as well as appointment of the selected candidates against Advertisement No. 1/2019 is put to challenge in the premise of the same being suffered from the vice of serious irregularities. The petitioners sought a direction upon the concerned respondents to produce question booklet, OMR sheet and answer key pertaining to Preliminary and Mains examination conducted in relation to Advertisement No. 1/2019. The petitioners are aggrieved with the merit list of Bihar Police Sub-Inspector published on 17/6/2021, as contained in Annexure-9 Series against the advertisement No. 1/2019 for the Post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen) conducted by the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission as well as consequential appointment letters, as contained in Annexures- 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, as the same are prepared and issued in complete defiance of the prescription of the Advertisement as well as the concerned Rules; Moreover, the cut off mark of 75.8% under the General Category has been reduced to 75% in a most arbitrary manner after ousting the meritorious candidates and thereby violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Besides the aforenoted reliefs, the petitioners also sought a declaration from this Court to hold that the entire process of selection and appointment against Advertisement No. 1/2019 is in complete disregard of the terms and conditions incorporated in the Advertisement. Apart from the process of selection being nontransparent and unreasonable to extend favour to undeserving persons and thereby misused the office. The petitioners in substance sought a direction upon the respondents to disclose the reason for not declaring the petitioners successful despite scoring more than the cut off marks in mains written examination and further to declare the petitioners successful for the post advertised and appoint them as per their merit position and to extend all consequential service benefits.