Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Tritiya Snatak Astar Pratiyogita Chainit Sangh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 795 of 1997 ;
Decided On : JULY 25, 1997
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - 3RD GRADUATE STANDARD EXAMINATION - REVISED RESULT - QUASHING - LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - PROTECTABLE INTEREST - GAZETTE NOTIFICATION ABOLISHING SUBJECT BARRIER - COMMISSION'S POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, an association representing candidates who appeared in the 3rd Graduate Standard Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), challenged the revised result published by the Commission on 14-1-1997, which omitted their names and included candidates with lower marks. The petitioners claimed that the revision was arbitrary, mala fide, and violated their legitimate expectation and protectable interest arising from the publication of the initial result on 16-12-1996.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Commission's justification for revising the result, based on alleged requisitions received after the examination, was unconvincing and lacked plausible explanation. It noted that the Commission took one year to publish the initial result and failed to explain why the requisitions, assuming they were valid, were not considered earlier. The Court also highlighted the importance of the Commission's responsibility as a constitutional body and its duty to act responsibly and fairly.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commission had the power to revise the result after its publication? 2. Whether the revision of the result was arbitrary, mala fide, and violated the petitioners' legitimate expectation and protectable interest? 3. Whether the Commission was bound by the gazette notification abolishing subject barriers in competitive examinations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Commission lacked the power under the law to revise the results once they were published. It emphasized that the Commission's attempt to revise the result was not based on permissible considerations and was un-sustainable in law and facts. 2. The Court found that the revision of the result was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was done without any valid justification and appeared to be motivated by improper considerations, particularly the interest of the then Chairman of the Commission in accommodating certain unsuccessful candidates. 3. The Court held that the Commission was bound by the gazette notification dated 16th September, 1992, which abolished subject barriers in competitive examinations. It reasoned that the notification made it clear that no subject could be made compulsory for any post, and the Commission could not deviate from this directive.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned revised result published on 14-1-1997 and directed the Commission to send its recommendation on the basis of the initial result published on 16-12-1996. It also directed the State Government to act on the basis of the Commission's recommendation based on the initial list.
A. K. Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by an Association known as Tritiya Snatak Astar pratiyogita Chainit Sangh, inter alia, praying for quashing of the revised result of the examination of 3rd graduate Standard Examination published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the said commission ). The said result was published on 14-1-1997. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the said Commission to recommend the names of the candidates in terms of the final result published in respect of "the said examination in the newspaper in the State of Bihar on 16-12-1996.
2. The basic facts of this case are that on 13-2-1990 an advertisement was published by the Bihar Rajya Awar Seva chayan Parishad which is also known as the Bihar State Subordinate Services selection Board (hereinafter called the said Board ). The said advertisement is at Annexure-2. Under the requirements of the said advertisement, the candidates who had to apply in response to the said advertisement are to be graduate. The subjects of examination were both compulsory and optional. Subsequently in 1992 the said Board was dissolved. After dissolution of the said Board and its merger in the said commission, the said Commission stepped into the shoes of the said board. The said Commission decided to take a preliminary test examination for scrutinising and holding the main examination.
3. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners and others applied and it is not in dispute that the petitioners have the requisite qualifications to apply. On or about 28-5-1995 the said Commission took the preliminary examination. Thereafter the result of such preliminary examination was published on or about 10-8-1995. The petitioners were successful in the said preliminary test examination and as such they received form for appearing in the final examination. The form for final examination was thus filled up by them. While filling up the said form, the petitioners took subjects as per the advertisement in the compulsory and optional subject each from group A and b. Thereafter the main examination was held on 9-12-1995. In the said examination the petitioners appeared. The Commission wrote to the Director of Personnel and Administrative reform Departments for the purpose of roster clearance and the roster clearance was obtained.
4. Then almost after one year, the commission published on 16-12-1996 final result of successful candidates. It is not in dispute that the names of the petitioners figured in the list of successful candidates. After publication of the final result, it appears that the total number of names recommended by the respondents in terms of the said result was about 635. The Commission not only published the said result but it also published the names of the persons against different posts which will appear from the final result which is at Annexure-3.
5. The grievance of the petitioners, as raised in the writ petition, is that one ram Ashray Yadav, Ex-Chairman of the said Commission was going to retire on 22-1-1997 and it has been alleged in the writ petition that he was interested in some candidates who could not come out successfully in the final examination. As such a plan was hatched to revise the result and the impugned revised result was published by the respondent Commission on 14-1-1997 and in the said revised result names of the petitioners have been omitted and the names of several persons who admittedly got lesser marks than the petitioners and whose names were not included in the final result were included in the revised result.
6. Challenging such exercise on the part of the Commission in publishing the revised result, this writ petition was filed and this was admitted on 6-3-1997 and there is an order of stay restraining the State Government from making any appointment of a person unless the name of the concerned candidate is both in the earlier list as well as in
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
