JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J. :-—The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as BPSC) issued an advertisement on 15-9-1989 for filing up 56 vacancies to the post of Medical Officers (Ayurveda) in the State of Bihar. In that advertisement it was specifically provided that for the purpose of selection screening test would be held to short-list the candidates before making final selection. By a corrigendum dated 28-8-1991 it was stated that the vacancies to the post of Medical Officers (Ayurveda) had increased by 139. Thus, the total vacancies became 195. Another corrigendum dated 13-9-1992 was issued stating that all eligible candidates for the interview whoever became eligible till the date of the interview could take the interview. On 24-12-1992, letters were issued by BPSC to all eligible candidates to appear for objective type test in order to screen the applicants and to short-list the number of candidates.

2. On 10-1-1993, the screening test was held by BPSC. There were about 3,000 candidates who appeared for screening test. The results of the screening test were declared on 24-2-1993. 410 candidates were declared successful in the said screening test which included the appellants herein.

3. Some of the candidates who failed to secure the minimum marks and who could not be declared successful in the screening test filed C.W.J.C. No. 2512 of 1993 on 12-3-1993. They sought to quash the screening test held by BPSC on a number of grounds. The principal grounds on which the screening test was assailed are :

1. The question papers had leaked and they became marketable commodity before the examination.

2. The answer books of objective type examination came to be evaluated in the premises of BPSC by the staff who had no knowledge of examination.

3. The Chairman of BPSC had acted arbitrarily in holding the examination.

4. The questions asked in the screening test were vague and had more than one answers.

4. Pursuant to the screening test held on 10-1-1993 the successful candidates were called for viva voce between 15-3-1993 to 19-3-1993 in batches before four Boards constituted by the BPSC. In all such interview Boards, two Members of BPSC and one Expert appointed either by the BPSC or by the State Government constituted the Board.

5. Some more candidates, who had failed in the screening test, filed C.W.J.C.No. 2646 of 1993 on 19-3-1993, seeking to quash the screening test on the very same grounds as were urged in C.W.J.C. No. 2512 of 1993. The appellants filed intervention petitions in both these petitions. They were allowed by the High Court and the counsel for intervenors were heard. By a common judgment dated 19-7-93, both the writ petitions were allowed. The screening test dated 10-1-1993 was set aside mainly on the following grounds:

1. The experts were not taken during the interview on all the dates of interview by the BPSC;

2. the questions in screening test had more than one probable answer; and

3. the BPSC had fixed 50 per cent, for viva voce which was contrary to the rulings of this Court.

6. After so setting aside, the High Court directed the BPSC to advertise afresh for the post and make the selection. Aggrieved by this, the appellants have filed this civil appeals.

7. Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1994 are directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated 19-7-1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2512 of 1993 and 2646 of 1993 respectively.

8. Mr. Gopal Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellants states that the High Court had completely misdirected itself and had arrived at wrong conclusions. The allegation that answer books were freely available was not made when the first writ petition came to be filed on 12-3-1993. The alleged question and answer sheet came to be filed by the BPSC. Only thereafter the writ petitioners filed the same before the Court. If really, there was representation, in this regard, on 11-1-1993, the stand of the BPSC is that no such representation was received b