VIJAY KUMAR Vs. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14th March. 2001, the State Government submitted a requisition with B.P.S.C. for selecting a suitable candidate for being appointed as Director Archives. In the requisition, it was mentioned that the Essential qualification of the person to be selected should be at least a 2nd Class M.A. with adequate knowledge in Archive Science and 7 years experience in an Archive Office in a Supervisory Capacity. It was also mentioned that editing and publication of old records will also be treated as essential qualification of the person to be so selected. With that, it was mentioned that having a diploma in Archives keeping from the National Archives of India and conducting and guiding research work in Archive Science shall be desirable qualification. It was mentioned that these qualifications are relaxable. It therefore suggested that although, essential qualifications may not be relaxable but desirable qualifications may be relaxed. The requisition provided that apart from the selectors to he nominated by B.P.S.C., there must be two experts one of them should be the Director General of National Archives of India. New Delhi and the other shall be the senior most Professor of Modern Indian History of Patna University.

(2.) IT appears that in order to select a person pursuant to the said requisition. B.P.S.C. published an advertisement in the news paper on 10th May, 2002. Many people responded to the said advertisement, including the three writ petitioners herein and an interview was conducted by the Selection Board constituted by B.P.S.C. and they selected one Sri Ravindra Nath Baitha. An appropriate recommendation was issued by B.P.S.C. in favour of Mr. Ravindra Nath Baitha to the State Government for being appointed in the post of Director Archives. Since the State Government was not appointing Mr. Ravindra Nath Baitha he approached this Court by filing a writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. No. 13572 of 2003. In that, he asked for a mandamus to appoint him on the basis of the said recommendation. When the said writ petition was considered by this Court, it was submitted by or on behalf of the State of Bihar that one of the exparts namely. Director General. National Archives of India, New Delhi was not a part of the Selection Committee, which selected Sri Ravindra Nath Baitha. Court, thus, as submitted at the bar made certain observations, which however, had not been recorded in any order passed by this Court. It is claimed that pursuant to such observation of the Court, fresh interview was taken on 9th December, 2004. At the said interview, apart from the nominees of B.P.S.C., the Director General National Archives of India. New Delhi as well as the senior most Professor of Modern Indian History of Patna University were present as selectors. They selected Dr. Vijay Kumar and accordingly, recommended Dr. Vijay Kumar for being appointed as the Director Archives. The State Government has refused to appoint Dr. Vijay Kumar as Director Archives. While refusing it has informed B.P.S.C. that Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have the essential qualifications. Dr. Vijay Kumar therefore has filed the writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2631 of 2005 wherein originally he asked for a mandamus directing the State Government to honour the said recommendation of B.P.S.C. and thereupon filed an application for amendment inasmuch as the State Government has communicated to him that he does not have essential qualification. In the letter written to the Dr. Vijay Kumar by the State Government on 27th February. 2006, although it has been stated that he does not have essential qualification for being appointed, but which of the three essential qualifications he is not allegedly having had not been indicated. While writing a letter to B.P.S.C. the State Government indicated to B.P.S.C. that Dr. Vijay Kumar does not have essential qualification, but it did not indicate which of the three essential qualification Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have. In those circumstances, on 2nd August, 2006, this Court directed the State respondents to file a counter affidavit to the application made for amendment and therein to indicate the justification for writing the latter dated 27th February, 2006. No such counter affidavit was filed pursuant to the said order dated 2nd August, 2006. The matter was then considered on 17th August, 2006. On that date, the matter was adjourned till today when it was observed by this Court that if no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No. 4, being the creator of the letter dated 27th February, 2006, the Court will presume, as its bound to presume, that there was no justification in writing the letter dated 27th February, 2006.

(3.) A judicial Review Court is competent review the process through which selection is made. Judicial Review Court cannot review selection itself. When the matter pertaining to selection of Sri Ravindra Nath Baitha was brought to the notice of this Court, the Court found that the process of selection is defective inasmuch as an essential part of the Selection Committee was not present when the interview Book place. It, accordingly, made certain observations, although without recording the same, and accordingly, reinterview was held. Admittedly, at the interview held on 9th December, 2004 all the constituent members of the selection Board were present. This selection Board considered the merit of Mr. Ravindra Nath Baith as well as of Dr. Jawaharlal Verma and Dr. Vijay Kumar along with other candidates. They found by interviewing those persons that Dr. Vijay Kumar is better than the rest. They, thus, selected Dr. Vijay Kumar. If it can be shown that Dr. Vijay Kumar could not be selected because he did not have essential qualifications, of course, the Court could interefere for the selection then would not be of selection of one person over others, but selection of an ineligible person ignoring the eligible candidates. Although, in one line the State has stated that Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have eligibility, but despite giving opportunities it could specify which essential qualification Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that the States opinion that Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have essential qualification is based on ipse dixit and not on any reasonable foundation.