Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
U.P.Singh and Aftab Alam JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Versus
Bihar Public Service Commission
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1192 of 1992 ;
Decided On : JUNE 11, 1992
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION - POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - RATIFICATION OF IRREGULARITIES - VALIDITY OF EXAMINATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates in the 37th Combined Competitive Civil Service Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (the Commission), challenged the centralized evaluation of answer books and the selection and appointment of examiners, alleging irregularities and lack of transparency in the examination process.
Finding of the Court:
1. The centralized evaluation scheme was introduced by the Chairman of the Commission without prior approval or decision by the Commission, constituting an infraction of Article 320 (1) of the Constitution, which mandates the Commission to conduct examinations. 2. The selection and appointment of examiners were made by the Chairman alone, without the involvement of the Commission, raising concerns about the qualifications and competence of the examiners. 3. The Commission's failure to frame rules or guidelines for conducting examinations and carrying out its constitutional duties and functions led to an opaque and arbitrary decision-making process. 4. The Chairman's assumption of the powers of the Commission and the Commission's abdication of its powers to the Chairman rendered the examination void ab initio, as the Chairman alone does not constitute the Commission. 5. The post facto ratification of the list of qualified candidates by the Commission could not save the examination from being vitiated due to the fundamental irregularities in its conduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chairman of the Commission could unilaterally introduce a centralized evaluation scheme and select and appoint examiners without the Commission's approval. 2. Whether the Commission's failure to frame rules for conducting examinations and carrying out its constitutional duties rendered the examination void ab initio. 3. Whether the post facto ratification of the examination results by the Commission could cure the fundamental irregularities in the conduct of the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chairman of the Commission cannot act as the Commission and assume its powers and functions, including the conduct of examinations under Article 320 (1) of the Constitution. 2. The Commission is legally obliged to conduct examinations as a body, and the Chairman cannot be deemed as a delegatee whose actions can be validly ratified later on. 3. The absence of rules or guidelines for conducting examinations and carrying out constitutional duties renders the Commission's functioning arbitrary and unreasonable, leading to controversies and challenges to the validity of examinations. 4. Post facto ratification cannot cure fundamental irregularities in the conduct of an examination that render it void ab initio.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the Commission to frame rules ensuring full participation of all Members in decision-making on basic issues and policy matters, and to consider sending answer books to examiners outside the state to enhance confidence and transparency in future examinations.
Aftab Alam, J.
1. This writ petition which appeared no more than an expression of resentment and pique by some of the unsucessful candidates, brings to light some disturbing facts regarding the functioning of the bihar Public Service Commission (the Commission for short ). The petitioners were among the two lacs six thousand candidates who took the 37th Combined Competitive Civil Service Examination conducted by the Commission. They failed to qualify on the basis of the written examination although as claimed, they had done extremely well. On enquiry they discovered that contrary to the past practice there had been a centralised evaluation of the answer books of this examination. This is to say that in the past the answer books were despatched to the examiners who invariably used to be persons outside the State of Bihar, further, according to the petitioners, the selection of the examiners was made from a Hand Book complied by the Association of Indian Universities giving the names and addresses of teaclers working in all the constituent colleges in the country. This practice was followed in all the past examinations upto 36th examination. All this was, however, changed for the 37th examination, this time instead of sending the answer books to the examiners (outside the State) the examiners were summoned to a central place where all the answer books of the different subjects were examined and evalued at the same time. Some of the examiners, being local teachers were well known to a number of candidates and it could also be assumed that they (the examiners ). too would have known several candidates. The petitioners further alleged that some of the persons appointed as examiners were not qualified and competent to be entrusted with the task of evaluating the answer books of this examination ; the manner in which the answer books were examined was also said to be far from satisfactory.
2. The grounds on which the petitioners assail the evaluation of the answer books of the 37th examination can be summarised as follows :-
(i) The centralised evaluation for the 37th examination was not the result of any decision by the Commission (consisting of a chairman ten other Members) but the departure from the past practice was made wholly at the instance of the Chairman alone (vide Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition ). (ii) The selection and appointment of the examiners were made by the Chairman alone and not by the Commission (vide paragraph 12 of the writ petition ). (iii) The centralised system of evaluation was bad for it led to the loss of much of the confidentiality and inaccessibility of the evaluation process ; the petitioners gave the names of some persons (vide Paragraph 11) of the writ petition) whose appointment as examiners for this examination, according to the petitioners became commonly known to the candidates and who being local persons could be amenable to various kinds of influences. (iv) The persons appointed as examiners were for evaluation of the answer books (vide Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the writ petition ). As is evident, the last three grounds of attack as enumerated above relate to the merits of (a) the decision to hold centralised evaluation, (b) the selection and appointment of the examiners and (c) the actual evaluation of the answer books. These grounds also involve questions of facts.
3. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, not failing to realise the strength (and the weakness) his case made only a passing reference to these three grounds. He, however, laid great stress on the first two grounds and questioned the competence of the Chairman to take, on his own, fundamental decisions relating to the examination, the conduct of which was the constitutional duty of the Commission mr. Jha submitted that in the conduct of the examination, the Chairman had presumed to act as if he a lone constituted the Commission and this aberration had completely vitiated the 37th examination w
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
