SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Pat) 572

MADHURESH PRASAD
Prakash Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Chakrapani, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh, Abhinav Srivastava, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Soni Shrivastava, Rajnish Kumar Choubey, Mukund Mohan Jha, Rajendra Narain, Surendra Kumar Choubey, Bharat Lal, Ravindra Kumar, Prabhakar Singh, Rakesh Mohan Singh, Uday Kumar, Shailesh Kumar Sharma, Ram Ji Kumar, Siya Ram Sahi, Ram Sevak Choudhary, Jitendra Kumar.
For the Respondents: P.K. Verma, Sheo Shankar Prasad, Partha Sarthy, Shilpa Singh, Manish Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Madhaw Prasad Yadav, Md. N.H. Khan, Kameshwar Kumar, Md. N.K. Khan.
For the BPSC : Lalit Kishore, Satyabir Bharti, Alok Chandra, Sanjay Pandey, Vikash Kumar.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

The writ petitioners in these batch of writ petitions have approached this Court being aggrieved by rejection of their candidature in the selection process conducted by the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission). 64th Bihar Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the respondent Commission is in issue in the instant proceedings, for which advertisement was issued on 02.08.2018 for filling up total 1465 vacancies in different posts under the Government of Bihar.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ proceedings is that the petitioners applied for consideration in the process of selection. Altogether there were 4,71,145 applicants. The process of selection comprised of an objective preliminary examination comprising of 150 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each. Successful candidates to the tune of ten times the number of vacancies were to be selected on the basis of objective preliminary examination for writing the mains subjective examination.

3. The Commission for the purpose of evaluation had got prepared a model answer key by the question setters. After the preliminary examin

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                whatsapp-icon Back to top