PRAKASH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission') to recommend the name of the petitioner to the State Government for appointment to the post of Munsif. An advertisement was made in the month of October, 1979 inviting applications for appointment to the 83 posts of Munsif. The petitioner along with others applied pursuant to that advertisement and appeared at the 19th Competitive Examination which was held in December, 1979. In view of rule 15 of the Bihar Civil Service'(Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') which requires the Commission to fix the qualifying marks in any or all subjects of the written examination in consultation with the Patna High Court, the Patna High Court was consulted for fixing the qualifying marks for the written examination of the 19th Competitive Examination. The Patna High Court vide their letter No. 14265, dated 8.10.1980 communicated its decision that the qualifying marks for viva voce test for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates should be 30% and for the rest 40%. In the meantime, there was some controversy as to whether some posts can be reserved for the Backward classes apart from the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Judicial Service. The Commission fixed the following percentage of marks obtained at the written examination for different categories for the purpose of calling them for interview: -

(2.) Before the results of the 19th Competitive Examination could be published writ applications, viz. C.W.J.C. No. 1716, 1855, 1868 and 2207 of 1983* were filed in this Court by different petitioners for different reliefs, including for direction to publish the results of the 19th Competitive Examination at an early date as well as for quashing the decision to reserve posts for Backward Classes. On 9.9.1983, this Court held in the aforesaid cases, which were heard together, that there cannot be reservation for Backward, classes under the existing Rules. This Court directed the Commission to forward the names of eligible candidates in accordance with rules 19 and 20 of the Rules aforesaid, out of the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Competitive Examination for the posts which were lying vacant.

(3.) As per the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid writ applications the Commission recommended more names out of the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Competitive Examination held in December, 1979. According to the petitioner, while recommending the names of more successful candidates at the said examination, the Commission has not recommended the name of the petitioner who has secured more marks than some of the respondents who have been recommended by the Commission for appointment. A copy of the letter of recommendation dated 13.1.1984 sent to the State Government by the Commission is Annexure -6 in which details of the marks obtained by 38 candidates whose names have been recommended have been mentioned. It is the case of the petitioner that he has secured 416 marks in aggregate whereas the candidates mentioned against serial Nos. 36 and 37 have secured 415 and at serial No. 38, 413 marks.