P. B. Bajanthri, J. –

Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2020

I.A. No. 01 of 2020 has been filed for condonation of delay of about four days in filing L.P.A. No. 187 of 2020.

2. For the reasons stated in the application read with affidavit delay of about 4 days in filing L.P.A. stands condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2020 is allowed.

Re.: LPA No. 187 of 2020

3. The appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20264 of 2019.

4. Respondent- Bihar Public Service Commission notified 100 vacancies of Accounts Officer posts inviting application from the eligible candidates on 05.02.2015. Among others, appellant is one of the candidate. Respondent-Commission has undertaken preliminary examination on 25.09.2016 and results were announced on 10.03.2017, in which the appellant had passed the examination. Resultantly, he was eligible to participate in the main examination. The result were announced on 06.09.2018. Interview was conducted during the intervening period from 24.09.2018 to 28.09.2018. Petitioner was not invited for interview and marks secured by the appellant and others have not been notified till the final select list was notified on 01.10.2018. Thereafter, marks-sheets were issued on 12.10.2018. The appellant has secured 519 marks. 73 marks awarded in History Paper-I for 200 marks has not been taken into consideration while issuing the marks-sheet. In History Paper- I, they found a currency note of Rs. 500/- in the answer book, resultantly, Commission has not taken note of whatever the marks awarded by the examiner in History Paper- I, i.e. 73 marks while announcing total marks secured. Appellant approached the Commission and obtained answer book through RTI on 15.02.2019. Thereafter, he has filed CWJC No. 20264 of 2019. Learned Single Judge dismissed the CWJC No. 20264 of 2019 on 16.01.2020. Hence, the present L.P.A.

Submission on behalf of the appellant

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has not been provided an opportunity before in not taking note of marks awarded in History Paper- I -73 marks on the score that answer book consisting of one currency note with a denomination of Rs. 500/-. Before the Commission taking such a decision, appellant has not been provided an opportunity. Minimum principle of natural justice was required in issuing notice and taking explanation and further oral hearing should have been provided.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge has committed error in not appreciating that appellant has not been provided an opportunity of hearing or a notice before impugned action is taken. Insofar as not considering the marks awarded in the History Paper I – 73 marks out of 200. It is also submitted that learned Single Judge has failed to apprise that by virtue of Commission’s action he has been denied opportunity of further participation in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2015 and it amounts to penalising the appellant. In fact, he has pointed out that Section 3 read with Section 10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 (for short Act, 1981) should have been invoked.

7. Similarly, non-considering the appellant’s candidature for the selection pursuant to advertisement dated 05.02.2015 on the score that History Paper-I, answer book containing Rs. 500/- note denomination and it does not amount to penalty or debarring appellant for future selection. The aforementioned logic cannot be appreciated for the reasons that appellant has been denied right to participate in the entire process of the advertisement dated 05.02.2015 and in the mid of the process of recruitment his candidature has been cancelled. He has been denied his right to participate in the entire process of selection to that extent learned Single Judge has committed error. In support of the aforementioned contention he relied on decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2