AURANGZEB Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 21 Writ Petitions were heard together at the stage of admission because the common grievance raised by the petitioners is that the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) has wrongly rejected the applications of the petitioners submitted in response to Advertisement No. 43/2005, in relation to 26th Bihar Judicial Service competitive Examination, 2005. Petitioners have, inter alia, prayed that the Commission be directed to issue admit cards to the petitioners allowing them to take the examination in question, which is scheduled from 5th July, 2006.

(2.) SOME of these Writ Petitions which also include one filed by way of Public Interest Litigation were listed and heard on 30th June, 2006. During arguments, it transpired that the reasons for rejection of about 3000 applications, on one or other eight broad grounds, had not only been communicated to the individual applicants but had also been published by the Commission through press communication on 30th June, 2006. The eight categories of reasons are as follows: (i) Ineligibility on ground of age, (ii) Essential qualification not being from a recognized college/institution, (iii) Non -payment of requisite examination fee, (iv) Failure to indicate the required number of optional subjects, (v) Absence of signature/attestation on the photograph, (vi) Absence of signature on the required declaration that the contents of the application are true, (vii) Incomplete application/information in the application form, and (viii) Receipt of applications after the last prescribed date.

(3.) HAVING considered the overall factual background of all these cases, the nature of grievances raised by the petitioners. and the larger public interest which warrants that the date of examination be not postponed so as to adversely affect the recruitment process for filling up vacancies in judicial service of State of Bihar which are existing since long and for which about 38840 candidates are scheduled to take the competitive examination from 5th July, 2006, this Court is of view that, at the first instance, the Commission should itself consider the grievances and claims of the petitioners, who have not been granted any relief by the Commission so far and also of those who have been granted provisional relief by the Commission. For that purpose, all these writ petitions shall be treated as representations filed by the petitioners before the Commission.