PANDEY VENKTESH PRASAD SINHA, BINOD KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two writ applications are unsuccessful candidates for appointment to gazetted posts under the State of Bihar. For the purpose of recruitment, a combined competitive examination in two parts - -Written Test and Personality Test - -was held. The written test carried a total of 850 marks. The merit of the candidates for Personality Test carrying 100 marks was assessed by a Board on the basis of interview which has been referred to by the learned counsel appearing before us as viva voce test. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. 494 of 1984 as well as the respondents 3 to 8 all obtained 565 as their respective aggregate marks -the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8 getting higher marks in written papers than the other respondents who were awarded better marks at the interview and have been selected by the Commission for appointment. The petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 have been declared unsuccessful as sufficient number of vacancies are not available to accommodate all. Similarly, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. 3785 of 1984 both belonging to "backward class' obtained 561 marks but the respondent No. 4 has been selected for appointment on the basis of his higher marks in the Personality Test. The petitioners in the two cases contend that preference must be given to the candidates obtaining higher marks in written test and on that basis they (petitioners) should have been selected. The petitioners have also pleaded serious irregularities in the conduct of the examination. It is alleged that when the programme of the written test was announced in the local daily newspaper, it indicated that there were only 46958 candidates, but when the result was published, it appeared that 478 new roll numbers were added. The petitioners have described, them as unofficial candidates. For filling up 365 vacant posts, 1035 candidates were selected for Personality Test. In the final selection list, 20 out of the added 478 candidates were included, which has been challenged as illegal. Allegations of favouritism and mala fides have also been made in the applications. The respondent Commission has refuted the allegations.

(2.) The counter affidavit of the respondents has, in detail, explained the circumstances in which the additional roll numbers had to be allotted to the bonafide candidates duly entitled to be considered for selection. It has been stated that on account of the liberal policy of the Government, the number of the candidates swelled to over 47656 and it was, therefore, not possible to complete the scrutiny of the application forms manually without under delay. To expedite the matter, it was decided to take the help of Computer service. It was for the first time that such a decision was taken, but, unfortunately, it could not be a success. After the initial publication of the list, a large number of objections were received from the candidates who had applied in time after duly complying with all the requirements. After scrutinising their objections. Admit Cards were issued to them with new roll numbers. It is asserted that there was no irregularity in the selection of the successful candidates at ail. I have gone through all the allegations and counter allegations made on behalf of the parties and I have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioners' case. It is true that at the time of filing of the writ applications, the petitioners had no knowledge of the relevant facts and on the basis of the confusion in the roll numbers, they were justified in raising the plea of irregularity but the persistence with which they pursued the matter even later and used strong language about favouritism etcetera is uncalled for. I would like to state here that apart from the confusion in the roll numbers, no other material or circumstance was relied upon before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) According to the rules applicable, the final selection has to be made on the basis of the candidates acquiring higher aggregate marks, but they do not in express terms deal with a case where two or more candidates score the same aggregate. According to the Commission, the candidate obtaining higher marks in viva voce test has to be preferred. The learned counsel for the Commission has, in answer to a query from the Bench, stated after taking instruction from the respondents, that no formal decision in writing has been taken in this regard and the respondent -Commission is following this practise since an observation by an earlier Chairman of the Commission was made several years back. The learned counsel for the other parties also have not suggested that there is any relevant rule or executive instruction in this regard. On behalf of the petitioners, however, reliance has been placed on the Government decision as contained in the notification, Annexure 14 (at pages 144 and 145 of the records) reducing the marks fixed for viva voce test from 200 to 100. The notification states that the decision to reduce the marks was taken as it was not practicable for any Board to accurately assess the personality and character of a candidate in the short time available for the interview and, as at times, evaluation is made on subjective considerations. It has also been said that sometime persons having special connection get undue advantage at the costs of the candidates scoring higher marks at the written examination. It has been rightly suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid decision clearly indicate that greater weight ought to be attached to the written examination.