The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement for a recruitment process must be adhered to, and any deviation from the terms of the advertisement cannot be permitted.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. All these applications have been heard together, as they involve same issue with the consent of parties.

3. Heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

4. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, through whom these three applications have been filed states that the petitioners shall confine their challenge to the impugned result of the preliminary test published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, BPSC) on the sole ground that B.PS.C. could not have prescribed any minimum qualifying marks for the said preliminary test in the absence of any clear stipulation in this regard in the advertisement.

5. The B.PS.C. came out with an advertisement no. 01 of 2020 inviting applications for 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer (in short APO). The scheme of the process of selection as disclosed in the advertisement, in tune with the statutory rules governing the cadre, prescribed three tier system, viz., a preliminary test, a written examination and an interview. Clause-5 of the advertisement laid down in detail, the procedure for selection. A copy of the advertisement has been brought on record by way of Annexure-1 to the writ application. The preliminary test, according to the advertisement, was to be held of two papers namely General Studies and Law. 100 marks was allocated for General Studies and 150 marks for the subject of Law. It was indicated that the marks scored in the preliminary test shall not be added for the purpose of preparation of final merit list for appointment. Only those who qualify in the preliminary test are eligible to appear in the main examination, as per the advertisement. It is evident from the advertisement that the final merit list for appointment is to be prepared on the basis of marks scored in the written test and the interview.

6. After the headings 'main examination' and 'interview' of clause 5, four notes have been added in the advertisement. Note 1 prescribes that only such candidates shall be invited for interview, who score minimum marks in the main examination as prescribed in the resolution issued vide Memo No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 and letter no. 6705 dated 01.10.2008 for different categories of candidates. Note 2 prescribes that 2.5 times the number of vacancy shall be called for interview on the basis of written examination, having due regard to the prescriptions in the said Memo No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 (supra) issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar has prescribed minimum qualifying marks for various competitive examination as under:-

"a)- General category-40 percent,

b)- Backward class -36.5 percent.

c)- Backward class annexure-l(EBC)-34 percent.

d)- Scheduled caste, Schedule tribe and women's class-32 percent."

7. The petitioners participated in the preliminary test. The result of the preliminary test came to be published by the B.P.S.C. on 27.04.2021 declaring 3995 candidates successful, belonging to various categories. The roll numbers of these petitioners do not figure in the list of successful candidates.

8. There does not appear to be any dispute rather it is admitted by the B.P.S.C. that candidates, 10 times the number of vacancies advertised were required to be invited for the written examination.

9. Subsequent to holding of preliminary test, the B.P.S.C. issued certain clarification in relation to some typographical error in the answer sheets wherein 'full marks 100' was in place of 150 for the Law paper. Subsequent to publication of result, the B.P.S.C. came out with another clarification on 28.04.2021, which has been brought on record by way of Annexur