LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.313 OF 2001 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.507 OF 2001 ***** Against the judgments and orders dated 20.03.2001, and 2.5.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10337 of 2000 and 695 of 2001 respectively. ***** In L.P.A. No.313 of 2001: 1. BINOD KUMAR PRABHASHKAR, S/o Mr. Chandradeo Paswan, resident of village- Bariatola (Olapur), P.O. & P.S.- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur, at present residing at Nandani Path, West Patel Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-800 023. 2. Jitendra Kumar, S/o Mr. Amir Das, J. (Retd.), resident of Village- Shadipur Coura Maidan, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District- Munger. 3. Binod Kumar, S/o Mr. Sita Ram Paswan, resident at Taridavil, P.O. Davil, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui, PIN-811 307. 4. Sunil Kumar, S/o Mr. Ram Bachan Ram, resident of P.O.- Pitro, P.S.- Agson Bazar, District- Bhojpur (Ara), PIN-822 202. 5. Dilip Kumar Deo, son of Mr. D.V. Kumar, resident of M.I.G.-B/84, Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 6. Binod Kumar Prasad, son of Mr. C.S. Prasad, resident of village and P.O.- Dhamar, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. 7. Gyan Ranjan, S/o Mr. Rajeshwar Pd. Chaudhary, resident of Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. – Agamkuan, Kankarbagh, Town and District- Patna, PIN-800 020. ........ Petitioners........Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. ..... Respondents ..... Respondents 1st Set. 4. Lalit Busan Ranjan, son of Sri Ram Janam Ram, resident of Village- Laxmanpur Bath, P.O.- Parasi, District- Jehanabad. 5. Devendra Suman, son of late Sita Ram Prasad, resident of Mohalla- West Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.O.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna. 6. Gautam Kumar, son of Sri Hiralal resident of Village- Gurhatta, P.O.- Khajekalan, District- Patna. 7. Pramod Kumar, son of Sri Mahabir Mahto, resident of village- Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. Ashiana Nagar, District- Patna. 8. Nand Kishore Chaudhary, son of Sri Munshi Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla- Upper Chutia, Kathgola, Ranchi. 9. Rahul Burman, son of Sri Vijay Kumar, resident of Mohalla- A.P. Colony, District- Gaya. 10. Arjun Ravidas, son of Sri Ramdeo Das, resident of Mohalla- Ambedkar Nagar, District- Jehanabad. 11. Brij Kishore Chaudhary, son of Sri Musafir Chaudhary, resident of Village & P.O.- Maoskar, District- Nawadah. 2 12. Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of Birsa Advani Colony, Kumharar, District- Patna. .... Intervenor-petitioners.....Respondent 2nd Set. 13. Mr. Suresh Kumar, son of Mr. Sheopujan Ram, resident of Village & P.O.- Nagari, P.S. Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur. 14. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, son of Mr. Saryu Paswan, resident of village- Dadpur, P.O. Keshopur, P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui. 15. Ms. Shalini Kumari, daughter of Mr. S.N. Choudhary, resident of M-2/34, S.K. Puri, P.S. S.K. Puri, Town and District- Patna. 16. Mr. Rabindra Ram, son of Mr. Raja Ram resident of village & P.O.- Uradma, P.S. Barun, District- Aurangabad, Bihar. 17. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prakash, son of Mr. Ram Chandra Ram, resident of C-204, Saket Vihar Apartment, Khajpur, Raja Bazar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Town and District of Patna. .....(.petitioners).....Proforma Respondents...Respondents. 18. Dr. (Prof.) Ramashish Singh, Former Member, Bihar Public Service Commission, Road No.5, Gandhi Murti, Patel Nagar, Patna-800023. 19. Mr. Raja Ram Prasad, former Member, Bihar Public Service Commission, 87/40, Officers‟ Flat, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. 20. Mr. R.N. Ghatak (Former Controller of Examination, BPSC) at present Under Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. ..... Respondents 3rd set........ Respondents. ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur & Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent nos.1 & 2: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Assistant Counsel to A.A.G.-II For Respondent no.3: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha & Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandey, Advocates. For Respondent nos.4 to 12: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Binod Singh & Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocates. For Respondent no.18: Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.19: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ******* In LPA No.507 oF 2001: KANHAIYA KUMAR, S/O Mr. Rajgir Rajak, R/o LIG 499, Block no.14, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakarnagar, Town/District- Patna. ........ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 3 3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. ...... Respondents......... Respondents 1st Set. 4. Lalit Busan Ranjan, son of Sri Ram Janam Ram, resident of village- Laxmanpur Bath, P.O.- Parasi, District- Jehanabad. 5. Devendra Suman, son of Late Sitaram Prasad, resident of Mohalla- West Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.O.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna. 6. Gautam Kumar, son of Sri Hiralal, resident of Village- Gurhatta, P.O.- Khajekalan, District- Patna. 7. Pramod Kumar, son of Sri Mahabir Mahto, resident of village- Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. Ashiana Nagar, District- Patna. 8. Nand Kishore Chaudhary, son of Sri Munshi Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla- Upper Chutia, Kathgola, Ranchi. 9. Rahul Burman, son of Sri Vijay Kumar, resident of Mohalla- A.P. Colony, District- Gaya. 10. Arjun Ravidas, son of Sri Ramdeo Das, resident of Mohalla- Ambedkar Nagar, District- Jehanabad. 11. Brij Kishore Chaudhary, son of Sri Musafir Chaudhary, resident of village & P.O.- Manskar, District- Nawadah. 12. Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of Birsa Advani Colony, Kumharar, District- Patna. 13. Shashi Bhusan Prasad, S/o Mr. Mahendra Prasad, C/o Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan Prasad, Lalliyahi (Ghosh Plot), P.O. Katihar Gol, District- Katihar. 14. Abay Kumar Rajwar, S/O Mr. Dhanu Dhari Ram, Additional Director, Income Tax (Sub-Division Office), Udho Babu Lane, Tharap Khana, Ranchi. 15. Sunil Kumar Ranjan, S/o Mr. Ramdeo Das, Village- Champa Hari, Post- Raspur, Via- Belhar, District- Banka. 16. Ajay Kumar, S/o Mahavir Prasad Jhipahi Tola, Baksha Ghat Road, Purnea, Bihar. ...... Respondent 2nd Set.............. Respondents. 17. Dr. (Prof.) Ramashish Singh, Former Member, Bihar Public Service Commission, Road No.5, Gandhi Murti, Patel Nagar, Patna-800023. 18. Mr. Raja Ram Prasad, former Member, Bihar Public Service Commission, 87/40, Officers‟ Flat, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. 19. Mr. R.N. Ghatak (Former Controller of Examination, BPSC), at present Under Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. ........ Respondents 3rd Set........ Respondents. ******* For the Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur & Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent nos.1 & 2: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Standing Counsel No.l6. For the Respondent no.3: Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandey & Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For private respondents: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma with Mr. Bindhyal Singh and Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocates. ******* 4 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ******* S.K. Katriar, J. The two appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna have been preferred by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.10337 of 2000 (Binod Kumar Prabhashankar and others vs. The State of Bihar and others), and C.W.J.C. No.695 of 2001(Mr.Kanhaiya Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others), and are directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 and 2.5.2001 respectively, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed, and the petitioners‟ prayer for a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the „Commission‟), to recommend their names for appointment in the Bihar Administrative Service in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes, has been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeals may be indicated. The basic facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No.10337 of 2000, except by specific reference to any other proceeding. The Commission had issued an advertisement on 31.12.1997, inviting applications for 42nd Combined Civil Services Examination. The selection process comprised of three parts. The first part was the preliminary test which was held on 29.11.1998. After scrutiny of the answer-sheets at this stage, 5 results of 6138 candidates were published in January 1999, who were called upon to appear in the second round of the selection process known as the „Main Examination‟. The main examination was held in April-May 1999, and 6138 candidates had to appear at the test. On a scrutiny of their answer scripts, a combined list of 681 candidates was published on 9.10.1999. These 681 candidates were required to appear at the viva-voce test, the final stage of the selection process. 2.1) It was a combined list of 681 candidates which included candidates of the general category as well as various reserved categories. We are in the present case concerned with the candidates of reserved category of the scheduled castes. Altogether 31 candidates for the Bihar Administrative Services, and 10 candidates for „other services‟ had to be appointed in the reserved category of scheduled castes. The Commission decided to call the candidates two and half times of the number of vacancies for viva- vice test. In other words, 103 candidates of the reserved category of scheduled castes had to be called for interview. Therefore, the Commission, out of the combined list of 681 candidates, prepared another list of 103 candidates of scheduled castes to be called for viva-voce test. The viva-voce test took place in November 1999. 2.2) It may incidentally be mentioned that some of the dissatisfied candidates, not confined to the category of scheduled castes and not called for interview, preferred C.W.J.C. No.10610 6 of 1999, in this Court wherein interim orders were passed directing the Commission not to make recommendations. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.3.2000, which is reported in 2000 (4) P.L.J.R. 619 (President, 42nd Main BPSC Examination Sangharsh Samitee, Patna and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others). The appeal challenging the same was dismissed by order dated 23.4.2001, passed in L.P.A. No.630 of 2000. 2.3) The Commission thereafter published the final results on 3.4.2000, and made recommendations which included 31+10 candidates of the reserved category of scheduled castes and is the subject-matter of the present proceedings. All the writ petitioners had found their way in this list. There was a minor correction in this list on 29.4.2000, which is of no consequence in the present context. The Commission sent its final recommendation on 6.5.2000, to the Bihar Government, whereby candidates of different categories were recommended including 31 candidates of the reserved category of scheduled castes. It may be clarified that we are concerned with appointment to Bihar Administrative Service only, and not „other services‟. There were 31 vacancies for the former, and 10 for the latter. On receipt of the recommendations, the State Government took steps to make necessary verifications and complete the formalities as per the established procedure. 7 2.4) While the Government was taking requisite steps as per the established procedure to issue appointment letters, the Commission received certain complaints that it had committed errors in preparing the list for recommendations of scheduled castes candidates which led to review of the whole matter in the Commission‟s office. Thereafter the Commission‟s office put up agenda dated 29.7.2000, before the Commission pointing out that it had, out of the combined list, prepared list of 103 candidates of scheduled castes who had to be called for interview. However, on account of the mistake of the Computer Operator who had fed erroneous commands, the first 16 candidates were left out at the stage of viva-voce test and were not called for that purpose. The agenda further stated that the Computer Operator was under the impression that the first 16 candidates of this list had found their way in the list of general category candidates and would be called for viva voce test from that list and were, therefore, not required to be called for the purpose as candidates of the reserved category of scheduled castes. Consequently, the 16 candidates in serial order lower down were called for interview. Therefore, the agenda proposed remedial measures. The commission considered the agenda at its meeting held on 29.7.2000, noted the error in preparation of the first list, and in an effort to find out a meaningful solution, passed the resolution that the first 16 candidates of the reserved category of scheduled castes shall be called for interview. 8 Consequently, the 16 persons at the top of the list of reserved category of scheduled castes were subjected to viva-voce test, a fresh merit-list of this reserved category was thereafter prepared and forwarded to the State Government for appointment, after recalling the earlier recommendations of this reserved category. 2.5) The writ petitioners who had found their way to the earlier list of recommendations lost their position and went down in the fresh merit-list, though all of them were recommended by the Commission for appointment. However, in view of their lowered position in the fresh merit-list, some of them were appointed in „other services‟, being inferior category than the Bihar Administrative Services, and four candidates did not get any appointment at all in view of their inferior position in the fresh merit-list leading to the writ petitions. 2.6) Some of the candidates of this category of scheduled castes who had figured in the earlier list of recommendations lost interest because they were appointed elsewhere and were no longer interested in the present appointment. Some of the candidates who have been appointed to the „other services‟ are still interested and want to be upgraded. 3. C.W.J.C. No.10337 of 2000 was taken up as the main case and was disposed of by a learned Single Judge, and was dismissed. He came to the conclusion that the Commission had made a serious error in omitting to call the first 16 candidates of 9 the list of the reserved category for interview. However, no fault can be found with the Commission‟s effort to rectify the error, as a result of which a fresh list of recommendations had to be forwarded to the State Government in supersession of the earlier recommendations. Consequently, a few persons have been appointed in the „other services‟, and four persons, because of their depressed position in the fresh list of recommendations, are completely out of the picture. The learned Single Judge has also examined various circumstances cited on behalf of the petitioners to discredit the Commission‟s effort to rectify the errors. However, the learned Single Judge on a detailed scrutiny of the circumstances, repelled the contentions and upheld the fresh list of recommendations. Hence this appeal at the instance of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.10337 of 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Commission‟s errors at the first stage, and its effort to rectify it later on, are not bonafide attempts. Those are deliberate attempts to favour and disfavour candidates. He next submits that the learned Single Judge has examined each circumstance separately and did not feel convince. In his submission, however, the learned Single Judge has erred in not taking into account the combined effect of all the circumstances resulting in miscarriage of justice. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana and others v. Rajendra Sareen (A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1004). 10 4.1) The Commission‟s case that the mistake occurred at the hands of the Computer Operator is a puerile defence. He has also relied on the provisions of The Bihar Public Service Commission Rules of Procedures 1996 (Annexure-18), and submits that the prescribed procedure was not followed resulting in such a grave error. For such a lapse on the part of the Commission, bonafide candidates like the writ petitioners cannot suffer. 5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 herein (The State of Bihar) submits that the State Government normally feels bound by the recommendations of the Commission. It felt convinced that the error was bonafide and it was equally bonafide to correct the error. Therefore, it took the decision to discard the earlier recommendations and accept the later recommendations. He also submits that 31 vacancies were earmarked for this reserved category of scheduled castes and it is not possible to appoint more persons in this category. He has also taken us through the records to establish the correctness of the present list. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 (the Commission) has submitted that the error was undoubtedly a bonafide one, and equally sincere attempts were made by the Commission to rectify the errors as a result of which no injustice has been done to anybody. He has taken us through the details of the records to satisfy us about the complete absence of mala-fides in this matter. He further submits that, at the instance of the parties, both in the 11 writ proceedings as well as in the current appellate proceedings, original records were called for from the Commission‟s office and were made available for the inspection of the learned counsel for the parties. He has also submitted that the prescribed procedure was followed and the learned Single Judge has not found error in following the prescribed procedure. In his submission, it was a bonafide human error fit to be undone. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, to which one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) was a member, in Ashutosh Kumar Roy Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 643. 7. Mr. R.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 12, representing the successful candidates as per the revised list, has made elaborate submissions to satisfy this Court that they rightly figured in the revised list and their appointments are unassailable. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has discussed every aspect of the matter in detail and has recorded appropriate findings of facts on scrutiny of the original records. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no.18 (the then Member of the Commission) submits that the primary question for consideration in this case is whether or not the mistake was bona- fide, whether or not the Commission was entitled to rectify the errors, and whether or not the efforts towards rectification were 12 sincere or bona-fide. He has placed before us detailed circumstances to satisfy us that the error was bona-fide. 9. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.19 (the then Member of the Commission) in his elaborate submissions has supported the Commission‟s action. 10. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We shall first of all consider the nature of the mistake committed by the Commission, the remedial measures taken by it, and the bona- fides or otherwise of both. It must first of all be emphasised, and indeed the admitted case of the parties is, that none has assailed before the learned Single Judge or before us the validity of the selection process. In other words, the selection process commencing with the advertisement till the stage of publication of the combined merit-list including all categories is unblemished. No grievance has been raised with respect to the evaluation at the viva voce test. After the first two stages, namely, the preliminary test and the main examination were over, the combined merit-list was prepared comprising of 681 candidates which, inter alia, included the candidates of the reserved category in question. In view of the position that 31+10 candidates had to be appointed to the two categories of services, namely, the Bihar Administrative Services and the „other services‟, a list of two and half times of the numbers of the vacancies of scheduled castes were called for from the 13 combined list and, therefore, a separate list of this category culled out from the combined list was prepared. This list of 103 candidates of this reserved category was also correctly prepared. 10.1) It is at the stage hereinafter that the mistake occurred, and the first 16 candidates by mistake were not called for interview, and instead candidates from serial nos.104 to 119 were called for interview. The interview took place of the candidates of this category from serial nos.17 to 119, instead of serial nos.1 to 103. The recommendations of Commission of the 31 candidates on this erroneous basis were forwarded to the Bihar Government. 11. It appears to us that, after the Commission had prepared and forwarded its recommendations to the State Government, it had received complaints from certain quarters which led to a detailed scrutiny of preparation of the list of this category. It transpired during the intensive enquiry in the Commission‟s office that, at the time of preparation of the list of 103 candidates of this reserved category, which had really been culled out from the unblemished combined merit-list, the Computer Operator, perhaps a daily-rated employee, had made the mistake of feeding erroneous command in the computer under the impression that the first 16 candidates of this reserved category had already made their way to the merit-list of the general category and would be called for interview from that list. Consequently, the Computer Operator had prepared the list of this category from 14 serial nos.17 to 119 who were called for interview. After the mistake was detected, it was decided to place it before the Commission for a final decision. The detailed agenda dated 29.7.2000, under the signature of the Commission‟s Deputy Secretary was placed before the Board for consideration. 12. It was considered at the Commission‟s meeting held on the same day and it was noted in its resolution of 29.7.2000 as to the mistakes committed by the Computer Operator resulting in preparation of a wrong list of recommendations, wherein the first 16 candidates of this category had suffered to the merriment of the 16 at the bottom of this list. It was, therefore, decided to conduct a special viva-voce test for the first 16 candidates of this reserved category. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.7.2000, of the Commission is reproduced hereinbelow: “vk;ksx esa dfeZ;ksa dh deh ds dkj.k dbZ dk;Z nSfud Hkksxh dfeZ;ksa ds n~okjk djk;k tkrk gSA vr% ckn esa lkjh fooj.kh vk;ksx ds n{k inkf/kdkfj;ksa n~okjk tkWapk tkrk gSA blh tkWap esa fyf[kr ijh{kkQy izdk'ku esa gqbZ Hkwy dk Kkr gqvkA ;g Hkwy dsoy vuqlwfpr tkfr dksfV ds mEehnokjksa esa gh gqvkA vU; dksfV esa dksbZ Hkwy ugh gqbZ FkhA ;g Hkwy Hkh ek= izdk'ku esa gqvk u dh ijh{kkQy rS;kjh esaA ;g vfHkizekf.kr lwph ls Li"V gksrk gSA vuqlwfpr tkfr dksfV esa 41 in lalwfpr FkkA blds fo#} 103 mEehnokjksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq p;f.kr djuk FkkA vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lHkh mEehnokjks dh vyx es/kklwph rS;kj dh xbZ FkhA lgh rkSj ij es/kklwph ds dze la[;k 1 ls dze la[;k 103 rd ds mEehnokjksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqykus ds fy, fjtYV izdkf'kr djuk Fkk, fdUrq dEI;wVj esa xyr dek.M nsus ds dkj.k dze la[;k 17 ls dze la[;k 119 ds mEehnokjksa dk vuqdzekd izdkf'kr gks x;kA ifj.keLo#i dze la0&1 ls dze la[;k&16 rd dk vuqdzekad NwV x;k rFkk dze la[;k 104 ls dze la[;k 119 dk vuqdzekad izdkf'kr gks x;kA vk;ksx ds ekuuh; lnL;ksa n~okjk lkjs jsdMZ dh tkWap dh xbZA ijh{kkQy rS;kjh esa dksbZ =wfV ugh ikbZ xbZA 15 fofnr gqvk fd xyr “dek.M” dk dkj.k Fkk vkSijsVj n~okjk ;g le> ysuk fd dze la[;k 1 ls dze la[;k 16 rd ds mEehnokjksa dk p;u vukjf{kr dksfV esa gks x;k gSA QyLo#i mlus 103 mEehnokjksa dks dze la[;k 17 ls dze la[;k 119 rd ds chp ys fy;kA rFkk budk vuqdzekd izdkf'kr gks x;kA tkWap esa ;g Hkh Kkr gqvk fd ftu 16 mEehnokjksa dk Hkwyo'k lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k x;k Fkk muesa ls dksbZ vuq'kalk ds nk;js esa ugh vk;sA QyLo#i muesa ls fdlh dk Hkh vuq'kalk ugh fd;k x;kA ftu 16 mEehnokjksa dks Hkwyo'k cqyk;k x;k Fkk mudk vuqdzekad fuEufyf[kr gS%a& 318548, 240212, 165940, 227017, 333301, 310254, 101572, 315124, 130534, 293374, 334202, 316517, 343286, 225990, 160500, ,oa 251995” 13. It is manifest on a combined perusal of the agenda and the minutes of the Commission that the Commission was convinced, as stated hereinabove, it is nobody‟s case that any mistake or mistakes had occurred in