ASHUTOSH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.P.S.C.'), whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been informed that they have not been included for the purposes of interview on the ground that they have not obtained the cut off marks. It has been further prayed for directing the B.P.S.C. not to act against the recruitment rules and the advertisement in preparation of the select list for the purposes of interview pursuant to Advertisement No. 9 of 2015 to 17 of 2015.

(2.) At the very inception, it may be relevant to mention here that though three interlocutory applications are on record, i.e. I.A. No. 367 of 2018; I.A. No. 598 of 2018 and I.A. No. 1096 of 2018, however, the learned counsel for the respective parties do not wish to press the same. As such, the said I.As. are dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are holding the qualifications of M.Sc. and they were appointed on contract basis on the post of Scientific Scientists with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna and their contract were renewed from time to time. On 30.10.2015, B.P.S.C. published Advertisement No. 8 of 2015 to 17 of 2015 for appointment on the post of Senior Scientific Officers in the various branches of Forensic Science Laboratory. The advertisement specifically laid down that the candidate is required to have three years experience on the post of Senior Scientific Assistant or equivalent or any higher post in any recognized Forensic Science Laboratory. Clause-5 of the Advertisement also stipulated that the process of award of 60 marks is in consonance with the recruitment rules. Clause-5(ii) of the Advertisement provided for grant of 5 marks for each year of experience up to maximum of 20 marks in the Forensic Science Laboratory situated at Patna, Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur. The candidates were required to submit their applications on-line by 30.12.2015 whereafter the petitioners had submitted their application forms with their experience certificates issued by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Bihar, Patna in which it was certified that the petitioners were working as Scientific Assistant from 2012 to 2014 and as Senior Scientific Assistant from 2014 to 2015. Subsequently, the B.P.S.C. published two separate lists of candidates, one containing the names of eligible candidates and another list of ineligible candidates. The name of the petitioners were included in the list of ineligible candidates and the reasons for their ineligibility was that they wee not having been requisite experience. Thereafter, the petitioners filed on-line objections stating that since the post of Scientific Assistant has been redesignated as Senior Scientific Assistant, both the said posts were equivalent for the purposes of counting of experience. The further case of the petitioners is that subsequently, the Home (Police) Department by its letter dated 20.07.2016 requested the B.P.S.C. to treat the experience on the post of Technical Officer / Senior Scientific Assistant/ Technician/ Scientific Assistant/Laboratory Assistant as experience on the post of Scientific Assistant. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory had then issued cut off experience certificate wherein it was clearly stated that the experience on the post of Scientific Assistant should be considered as experience on the post of Senior Scientific Assistant and it was also stated therein that the candidates be not debarred from the interview on the ground of insufficient experience. The petitioners had then produced the modified experience certificates before the B.P.S.C., however, the B.P.S.C. by the impugned notice on 19.04.2017 rejected all the objections by a non-speaking order and laid down the cut off marks on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the academic qualification, against the terms and conditions of advertisement. According to the petitioners, the percentage of marks was not a relevant factor rather the marks were to be awarded on the basis of division in which the candidate has obtained the concerned academic qualification. In fact the B.P.S.C., according to the petitioners, has not taken into account the marks against the experience of individual candidate. Some of the candidates had then filed a writ petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6657 of 2017 and this Court by a judgment dated 19.05.2017 allowed the writ petition and the B.P.S.C. was directed to allow the petitioners to participate in the interview along with other eligible candidates by considering their work experience on the basis of their services rendered as Scientific Assistant or equivalent post. The B.P.S.C. had then on 24.11.2017 published a list of candidates wherein the names of the petitioners herein were not included and the reason assigned was that the petitioners were not having marks more than the cut off marks, as fixed by the B.P.S.C. for each branch of Forensic Science. However, the B.P.S.C. invited objections from the excluded candidates vide notice dated 24.11.2017, in pursuance whereof the petitioners have submitted their objections pointing out that the interview list has been prepared in violation of the recruitment rules and the Advertisement. The B.P.S.C. had then published a notice dated 21.12.2017 whereby intimation was given regarding holding of interview on 18.02.2108.