IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5930 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR SAH, S/O SRI BISHWANATH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PIYAYUR, P.S.-MAJHRAUL HAQ NAGAR HASANPURA, DISTRICT-SIWAN, AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUB-DIVISINOAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAPRA(NORTH), DISTRICT-SARAN. ………………………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY SECRETRAY CUM EXAMINATION CONTROLLER OF BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 8. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTEMNT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 9. THE MD. AASHFAQUE ANSARI, S/O LATE HAZI MOHAMAD AMIN ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE-ETWA, P.S.-KARAHAGAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUB-DIVISINOAL POLICE OFFICER, MANIHARI, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 12.5.2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission. In this writ application, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had secured higher marks to respondent no.9, Md. Aashfaque Ansari who ought to have recommended for Bihar 2 Police Service in his place (respondent no.9). Mr. Verma in this context also refers to the decision taken by the Commission in the meeting held on 8.1.2008 and 10.1.2008 as contained in Annexure-5 and submits that in the light of the said decision which had favored his case, he also filed a representation to the Chairman of the Commission on 16.3.2009 for alteration or rearranging the merit list for the Bihar Police Service but no order thereon has been passed by the Chairman of the Commission. This Court would find that the respondent no.9 has also been recommended and probably has already started working in Bihar Police Service whereas the petitioner is working in Bihar Education Service. Nonetheless, if the petitioner had secured higher marks and was a better candidate in all respect than the respondent no.9, it is he who ought to have been recommended by the Commission for Bihar Police Service. This aspect of the matter, however, can be better appreciated by the Commission and accordingly, this Court would direct the 3 Chairman of the Commission to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass an order after hearing the petitioner as also the respondent no.9. Such an order must be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner as also respondent no.9 and therefore, it would be open for the Chairman of the Commission to take of his own impendent decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)