Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) This appeal was filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 147 of 1988 whereby a Division Bench allowed the said appeal of respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner (Vinoy Kumar Singh) and consequently set aside the judgment and order dated 28-8-1988 of the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and came to the conclusion that the authorities of the Commission are not authorized to take any steps after publication of the result of the examination. The Court held that it is not open to the Authorities of the Commission to issue a show-cause notice and to take any action after the conclusion of the examination unless there is any specific rule permitting the Authorities to do so. The Bench also held that no action can be taken against the candidate for committing unfair means committed by him in the course of the examination. Thus the High Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rules or executive instructions, the entire exercise of the Commission is vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety. The Division Bench further came to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice have also not been properly observed inasmuch as the respondents request to inspect and examine the answer books of other candidates and the specimen signature of the Invigilator thereon was denied. The Division Bench finally came to the conclusion that the learned single Judge of the High Court had himself tried to form an opinion about the alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner and hence the learned single Judge has committed an error of law. In view of the aforesaid conclusion and findings, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 22-9-1986 of the Commission debarring respondent No. 1/writ petitioner from the examination and directed the Commission to treat the candidate/writ petitioner as a successful candidate. However, it refrained from giving any direction to the Commission for appointing the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other post as prayed for as they felt that such a direction was beyond the scope of the writ petition.
(2.) In order to appreciate the various contentions raised by the Commission in this appeal, it is necessary to recite the facts in brief.
(3.) The Commission invited applications in the prescribed pro forma from eligible graduate candidates for appearing in the 31st Combined Competitive Examination conducted for filling up various Civil Posts. The written examination was to commence w.e.f. 12-2-1983. Respondent No. 1, being a graduate, applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as also for Deputy Collector in the prescribed pro forma. The Commission after preliminary scrutiny and having found respondent No. 1 eligible, allotted him Roll No. 16306 and also issued him an Admit Card in order to enable him to appear in the said written examination which was to commence from 12-2-1983. Respondent No. 1 was required to appear in General Science, General Knowledge and General Hindi papers which were compulsory subjects. The result of the successful candidates was announced and published by the Commission and respondent No. 1 was one of the successful candidates. Respondent No. 1, being successful in the written examination was called upon by the Commission to appear for an interview on 8-4-1985. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 appeared in the viva voce test on 8-4-1985. On 12-8-1985, respondent No. 1 was called upon to show cause by 30-8-1985 as he was accused of having committed unfair means in the General Knowledge Paper of the 31st Combined Competitive Examination and which the Commission after due consideration, had prima facie found correct. "(A) The main answer-sheet as also additional answer-sheets of General Knowledge Paper contains forged signature of the Invigilator which is found corroborated by a comparison of the signature of the Invigilator on the answer-sheets of other candidates of that room/hall. (B) From a perusal of the answer-sheet, it appears that the entire answer-sheet is based on materials smuggled from outside; and (C) On the main page of the answer-sheet, there are ink marks which is different ink than one used in the answer-sheets. It was further stated that in case, his show-cause to the aforesaid charges is not received by 30-8-85 through Registered Post, then it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter." ;