The relaxation of qualifying marks prescribed by the Government resolution was illegal as it was in direct conflict with the criteria prescribed under the statutory rules.

N.Pandey, J.

1. This writ petition was filed for quashing the result of the written test held for appointment to the post of Drug Inspectors, which was published on 27-11-1998 by the Bihar Public Service Commission (In short B.P.S.C.) in the daily newspaper "AAZ", a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition and to declare that the criteria adopted by the State Government for appointment to such posts was in conflict with the statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. A copy of such rule is Annexure-15 to the writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself.

3. Before coming to the crucial contention of the parties, it would be apt to notice a few facts. As would appear from the facts brought on record, on 19-10-1997, vide Annexure-6, an advertisement was published by the Bihar Public Service Commission inviting applications from the intending candidates for appointment of Drug Inspectors. Thereafter, on 14-8-1998 by a notification contained in Annexure-7, syllabus, etc. were prescribed for the written test and interview. The total number of vacancy was worked at 215 on the day of advertisement. Altogether, 384 candidates appeared at the test out of whom 39 candidates were declared successful on the relaxed standard which would be evident from the result published on 27-11-1998, as contained in Annexure-16. The main prayer in this case is for cancellation of the result and examination conducted by the B.P.S.C..

4. Since a grievance has been raised about the criteria prescribed by Annexure-C/1 to the counter-affidavit, the resolution dated 22-12-1990, introducing provisions to grant reservation to the Backward Classes and further relaxation of percentage of marks to the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes is alleged to be in conflict to the statutory rules, of the State Government, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, a copy of which is Annexure-15, dated 21-12-1989, it would be apt to notice certain relevant provisions of the rules and the procedures prescribed by Annexure-C/ 1.

5. As per rule six, 100 marks were provided for each of the papers. It further provides that a candidate of the general category securing 40% marks and the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes securing 35% would be qualified to appear at the interview. No provision was made to extend benefit for reservation to any other class. But Rule 15 of the said Rules provides that the B.P.S.C. while recommending names of the candidates was required to extend benefit of reservation and other relaxation etc. in terms of the rules of reservation framed by the Government from time to time.

6. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that as would appear from the advertisement and the statutory rules, framed by the Government, as contained in Annexure-15, since no provision was made to extend the benefit of reservation to the backward classes nor there was any provision to relax the percentage of the qualifying marks, it was not open to the State authorities to extend such benefits to these classes or to relax the qualifying marks by virtue of the resolution dated 22-12-1990, as contained in Annexure-C/1 to the counter-affidavit. Because, it is well settled that by virtue of the executive instruction, no subtraction or alteration can be made to the provisions prescribed under statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Mahato, appearing for the intervenor respondents, contended that as would appear from Rule 15 of the statutory rules, the respondent-Commission while recommending the names of the candidates was also required to extend the benefit of reservation to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes on the basis of the rules of reservation prescribed by the State Government from time to time. This is also not in