Point of Law: Service Law – Staff selection – Posts of Auditor – Examination - OMR sheets – Verification of - So far as verification of OMR sheets was concerned, that was done by the Officers of the Economic Offence Unit as well as officers of the Staff Selection Commission. It is their decision to return the remaining vacancies to the requisitioning department, instead of taking action for filling up the vacancies, although beyond suspicion nothing was found against them during course of investigation

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

1. All the three writ applications have been filed by the petitioners challenging the decision dated 27.7.2016 of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), whereby the Commission had decided to return back the left out vacancies of Auditor for sending fresh requisition.

2. In the year 2007 vide advertisement No. 2403, the Commission invited application for appointment on 570 posts of Auditor. The petitioners in all the three writ applications applied for the post. Their objective type examination was held on 7.10.2012. They were asked to keep carbon copy of the OMR sheets after the examination was over in terms of the instruction in the objective type examination while blackening the OMR sheets.

3. On 20.10.2012 a case was registered by the Economic Offence Unit vide Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 on the allegation that the lock of the strong room of the Commission in which OMR sheets were kept, was broken and OMR sheet was tampered and manipulated to extend favour to certain candidates. While the case was pending, the Commission published result of 400 candidates on 22.02.2013. The result of 10 candidates were kept in sealed cover subject to outcome of the Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012. Aggrieved by the result of the aforesaid examination conducted by the Commission certain unsuccessful candidates filed CWJC No. 5771 of 2013 and analogous cases. On 9.4.2013 28 successful candidates intervened in the pending CWJC No. 5771 of 2013. A single Judge of this Court granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit to apprise the Court about the present position of the criminal case i.e. Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012. The Court on the undertaking of the counsel for the Commission that they will not recommend the names of the candidates for the post of Auditor till final decision of the writ application, declined to pass any interim order. On 28.4.2014 the matter was again heard and the court asked the counsel for the Economic Offence Unit to produce the materials to show that there was actual tampering with the result and outcome of the examination. The Court in most unambiguous term reminded the Economic Offence Department that suspicion can never partake the place of proof as they stand today. The Court also allowed intervention applications filed by certain successful candidates. On 8/9.5.2014 notice was published in the newspaper whereby successful candidates were asked to present themselves before the office of the Commission on 2nd and 3rd June, 2014 along with carbon copy of the OMR sheets, attested copy of the Admit Cards, etc. Similar information was also uploaded on the website of the Commission. The Commission also requested the Economic Offence Unit to associate with the Commission in the process of verification and a Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, IO of Economic Offence Unit participated in the verification process. After investigation it was found that (a) out of 400 candidates only 355 candidates appeared in the office of the Commission for verification, (b) out of 355, 31 candidates did not produce their carbon copy of the OMR sheets for verification, (c) out of 324 candidates minor discrepancies were found with respect to 43 candidates whereas major discrepancies were found with respect to 15 candidates. On verification the Commission and the Economic Offence Wing found the OMR sheets of 266 candidates unblemished and thereafter certain correspondences were made in connection with the suspicious candidates. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, CWJC No. 5771 of 2013 and analogous cases were finally decided by oral judgment dated 19.2.2015, the relevant part of the discussions in CWJC No. 5771 of 2013 is quoted below for ready reference.

“From the above authoritative pronouncements, the preponderance of precedent is inescapable