IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12528 of 2021 ======================================================

Rina Kumari D/o Late Sheo Kumar Ojha, R/o-C/o-Rajesh Kumar Ojha, Masjid Lane, Badi Khanjarpur, Jagdishpur, P.S.-Barari, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission.

4. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, S.C.8 For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission (‘B.P.S.C.” in short).

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s):

“1. That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction upon the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to declare the petitioner successful in the 64^th Combined Competitive Examination as she has got

514 marks which is more than the cut off marks of

513.

1/A. That the petitioners further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the part of the letter dated 17.06.2021 in which the objection of the petitioner has been disposed of as follows:-

“lqJh jhuk dqekjh] vuqØekda &570183] e/skk Øekda &1650 }kjk dosy vkifwrZ fujh{kd] Je izoZu inkf/kdkjh] iz[kaM iapk;r jkt inkf/kdkjh ,oa iz[kaM vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh ds inks ds fy, vf/kekurk dk vda u vius vkosnu ds lkj izi=&II ¼?kk’sk.kk½ eas fd;k x;k gSA mDr inksa ds vUrxZr vukjf{kr ¼01½ efgyk dksfV eas p;fur vfare mEehnokj es/kk Øekda &1565 ij vofLFkr gSaA mDr inksa ds fy, de izkIrkda jgus d sdkj.k budk p;u ugh agqvkA”

1/B. That the petitioner further prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/direction to which he is found entitled to.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the B.P.S.C.

came out with an advertisement on 2.8.2018 for the 64^th Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination for filling up 1255 vacancies of 19 different posts. The petitioner appeared and having qualified in both the preliminary and mains examination, was called for interview. She appeared for interview on 10.2.2021.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to the unreserved (female) category and the cut off as per the B.P.S.C. for the said category is 513 marks. Inspite of the petitioner having secured 514 marks ie more than the cut off marks, the petitioner was not declared successful. As such, the petitioner filed her objection on 10.6.2021 addressed to the Controller of Examination, B.P.S.C. which was rejected vide order contained in letter dated 17.6.2021, impugned herein.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that subsequent to the advertisement for the 64^th Combined Competitive Examination published on 2.8.2018, the B.P.S.C. came out with a corrigendum on 5.11.2018 whereby the cut off age for four category of posts ie (i) Supply Inspector (ii) Labour Enforcement Officer (iii) Block S.C./S.T. Welfare Officer and (iv) Block Panchayati Raj Officer was increased. The petitioner, who was not able to apply earlier, as a result of change in the age limit of these four posts for the petitioner’s category of unreserved (female) being from

1.8.1975 to 31.7.1981, the petitioner applied.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the B.P.S.C. did not disclo