DEVENDRA MOHAN DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case as formulated by the petitioners in paragraph 2 of the writ application, is whether the two petitioners, who are candidates for appointment as Gazetted Officers of the State and were allowed to take part in the combined explanation held for that purpose should have been selected by the Public Service Commission as successful candidates. The ground urged is that "a large number of fake candidates have been included in the list of the successful candidates selected at the written Test as a result of which the petitioners are illegally excluded.

(2.) According to the provisions of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1952, the initial selection is made on the basis of a written Test carrying 850 marks. The selected candidates were thereafter interviewed for Personality Test carrying 100 marks. The final selection was made on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them. Rule 16 (a) provides for fixation of qualifying marks at the Written Test and, as has been stated on behalf of the Commission, the qualifying marks in the Written Test in the I resent case were fixed at 59%. The petitioners haying secured only 53% and 30% marks respectively at the said examination were not called for interview.

(3.) It has been asserted in the writ application that at the time of publication in the newspapers of the programme of the examination, it appeared that there were altogether 46958 candidates only. Reliance has been placed on the advertisement appearing in a daily newspaper. Subsequently, when the list of successful candidates at the Written Test was published, it included 78 additional roll numbers detailed in paragraph 6 of the writ application and it is said that 17 out of them mentioned in paragraph 8 were finally selected and appointed. It is contended that if the initial publication is to be believed, it must be held that these persons were not candidates at all and were later smuggled in as a result of which the petitioners could not be selected for interview. It has been further averred in paragraph 9 of the writ application that six other candidates were not in the list of the successful candidates at the written examination at all. Still another irregularity has been mentioned by saying that "there was duplication and triplication and even more of some Roll numbers selected for interview".