RAM BILASH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9-1-1985 dismissing C. W. J. C. No. 1692 of 1983, which was filed by the appellant. In that writ application the appellant had prayed for the issuance of a mandamus on respondent no. 2, the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) to recommend his name for appointment to any post on the basis of the result of the 29th combind competitive examination held by the Commission, and on respondent no. 1, the State of Bihar, for appointing him to the said post. There was also a request to quash the appointment of respondent no. 3 Binod Singh as Block Employment Officer, as he had secured less marks than the appellant at the said examination.

(2.) The short question, which arises for decision in this appeal, is as to whether a candidate, who had applied for all the services/posts, but had subsequently shown preference for only seven of the services posts, could be refused appointment to the services post which he had not included in his preference list, on the ground that he will be deemed to have withdrawn his candidature for the services/posts not included in his preference list.

(3.) In response to an advertisement issued by the Commission the appellant filed an application for various services/posts for which a combind competitive examination, to wit, the 29th combind competitive examination was going to be held. The candidates were instructed not to indicate their preference for the various services in the application form, as they were to be given an opportunity to indicate their preference at the time of viva-wee test, in case the qualified at the written examination. In due course the result of the written test was declared by the Commission and the appellant was declared successful in the category which was reserved for 'economically most backward class' and he was asked to appear at the viva-voce test on 27-11-1981. When the appellant went for appearing at the said test, he was given a statement showing the number of vacancies in the different services/posts in different Departments with their payscales and he was asked to indicate his preference for the services/posts in order of preference on a blank sheet of paper. Accordingly, he mentioned the names of seven services/posts in order of preference on a blank sheet of paper and tendered the same to the Commission. He, however, did not write anything about the remaining services/posts. When the final results were published the petitioner did not find his name amongst the successful candidates and, on an enquiry in the Commission Office, he learnt that although he had secured a total of 461 marks (443 in written examination and 18 viva-voce), he was not declared successful, whereas respondent no. 3 Binod Singh was declared successful in the same category i. e. 'economically most backward' although he had obtained only 459 marks in the aggregate. Eventually respondent no. 3 was appointed as Block Employment Officer. The appellant represented his case to the Secretary of the Commission, but to no effect. Thereafter he filed a writ application in this court-vide C. W. J. C. No. 3944 of 1982 which was disposed of on 19-10- 1982 with a direction to the Chairman of the Commission to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Subsequently, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and, being aggrieved thereby, he filed C. W. J. C. No. 1692 of 1983 which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 9-1- 1985 declining to grant any relief to the appellant excepting the opportunity to file a representation before the State Government. It is this decision of the learned single Judge, which has given rise to this appeal.