MADHUSUDAN PASWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment since they raise a common question of law. Petitioners, in both the applications, seek quashing of an order passed by the Bihar Public Service Commission dated 22-9-1986 (annexure-5 in both the writ applications) setting aside their examination with respect to General Knowledge examination in the 31st Combined Competitive Examination. The impugned orders merely say that the petitioners' show cause with respect to the charges levelled found not to be satisfactory, a decision has been taken to cancel the relevant answer books.

(2.) Facts : The petitioners were candidates for 31st Combined Competitive Examination and they were issued Admit Cards on 1-2-1983. Their examination commented on 12-2-1983. On 26-3-1985 the petitioners were asked to appear before the Interview Board on 24-4-1985 and pursuant thereto both the candidates faced the Interview Board. In August, 1985, a show cause notice was issued to both the petitioners levelling the following charges. In C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 the charges levelled were (Annexure-3) : the Head Examiner complained : (a) The signature of the Invigilator on main answer book is different from the additional answer book, and (b) The written answers are with the assistance of outside Agency. In C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986: (a) The extra answer book-I does not contain the signature of Invigilator, (b) In extra answer book-II the signature of the Invigilator is different from the signature of the Invigilator on the main answer book, and (c) the Invigilator's signature on IInd Answer book Does not tally with the main signature or signature of any other Invigilators (Annexure-3).

(3.) The petitioners filed their show cause which is Annexure-4 in both the writ petitions. In C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 the stand taken by the petitioner was that there were two Invigilators invigilating the process of the examination on each day of the Examination. The Commission had not disclosed before the ensuance of the Examination about the instruction issued by it that the signature on the main answer book and on the additional answer book should be of the same Invigilator. Thus, being not aware of the instruction the petitioners cannot be punished because the signature on the additional answer book of an Invigilator did not tally with the signature of the Invigilator on the principal answer book. However, the signature of the Invigilator on the second answer book should be compared with the signature of other Invigilators also. It was also submitted that at times Invigilator of other rooms also used to invigilate in absence of the Invigilators of the room where a particular candidate sits for examination. If, therefore, during such a period a candidate is supplied with an additional answer book the guilt lies on the part of Examination authority in supplying the additional answer book without obtaining the signature of the Invigilator on the principal answer book. As far as the second charge is concerned, it was submitted that had the petitioner taken the aid of the material coming from outside the Centre Superintendent, Invigilators and other Officers of the Commission deputed to conduct the aforesaid examination would have immediately taken action against him or would have submitted an adverse report immediately to the Commission. But, to the knowledge of the petitioner no such report was ever submitted. After two and half years of the examination when the petitioner successfully came out from the written test and after completion of the Interview such belated charges ought not to be levelled. In C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986 the stand of the petitioner in the show cause reply, it was submitted that it was not possible for a candidate to examine while in course of examination due to pressure and a different frame of mind while taking the examination to see for themselves whether the Invigilator has signed the answer book since it is thein duty to do so. So far as the second and third allegations that the second answer book carried a signature different from that of all the Invigilators as also the one spotted by the principal answer book, it is said that relievers keep on relieving regular Invigilators and if any answer book is given by the reliever then it is natural that the signatures of the two Invigilators do not appear in the said answer book. It has further been urged that at the time of collection of answer book often the Invigilators put their Signature on additional answer books not earlier signed. It was also contended that the genuineness of the answer paper could be found, from the register which is maintained by the Commission showing supply of additional answer book to a particular candidate which will show genuineness or otherwise of the additional answer books. The petitioners after having filed the show cause were served almost a year after the impugned orders debarring them in the said examination which have been assailed in these two writ applications.