S.K.KATRIAR, J.

1. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) has preferred this batch of six appeals against a common judgment dated 30.1.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he has allowed the six writ petitions, has set aside the Preliminary Test (hereinafter referred to as P.T.) of the combined competitive examination for the 48th to 52nd batches for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter, and has directed the Commission to hold fresh P.T. the six writ petitions raised common issues of facts and law, were disposed of by a common judgment, and the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The basic facts shall be drawn from CWJC No. 11858 of 2008 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others) as well as LPA No. 179 of 2009, unless needed by specific reference to a particular writ petition or appeal.

2. The Commission issued advertisement no. 4 of 2007, which was published in the local dailies on 6.11.2007, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the P.T. of the combined competitive examination for 48th to 52nd batches. The entire selection process comprises of three phases. The first one comprises of the PT, the second one of written test, and the final phase of viva-voce test. The answer sheets of the PT in the Optical Marker Reader (OMR, in brief), was programmed to be deciphered by a computer software in an objective-type answer sheet. The Commission received a total number of 2,63,265 applications. Admit cards were issued to all the candidates, but 1,76,984 candidates appeared in the PT, at 530 centres, in 34 districts, spread all over the State of Bihar, and was held on 25.5.2008.

3. Before we proceed further, we would like to indicate the format of the PT. The candidates were required to answer all the 150 questions with multiple choice of answers. It was of objective type. The candidates were supplied the Question Booklets covering 40 pages, and the answer sheet of one sheet both sides of which were used. Question Booklets were marked A, B, C and D series. The four series were expected to incorporate just the same 150 questions, with the same multiple choice of answers. The difference in the four series was that arrangement, i.e. serial number, of the questions were different in the four series to avoid copying in the halls. One candidate got one series which he could carry back home. Each candidate was also given one answer sheet both sides of which had to be used as per the instructions, the first page of which contained columns to be filled in the own handwriting of the candidate. The reverse page, namely, page no. 2 provided the spaces for the candidates to indicate their preference of suggested answers in the Question Booklets. Only black/ blue ink ball point pen could be used. There were different computer programming to decipher every answer sheet as per the series of the Question Booklet given to each candidate. As many as twelve important instructions were printed on the Question Booklets to be read and followed by the candidates.

4. The writ proceedings were confined to two kinds of objections, some of the questions were incorrect or the suggested answers were incorrect and, secondly, the Question Booklets supplied to some candidates were defective in various ways. In so far as the first kind of objections are concerned, as per its set norms and established procedure, the Commission constituted an expert committee to evaluate the key answers given by question setters. The Committee which dealt with the first aspect of the matter comprised of the following members:-

(i) Dr. B.K. Jha, Former Head of the Department of Political Science, Magadh University (ii) Prof. Dr. Surendra Gopal, Former Head of the Department, History, Patna University (iii) Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Director, Khudabaksh Library, Patna, (iv) Dr. Bhagwan Prasad Singh, Professor, Economics Department, Patna University (v) Dr. Randhir Singh, Head of Depar