IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6571 of 2011 PRIYANKA KUMARI, D/O BAIJNATH PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MINA BAZAR GALI, P.O.- GULZARBAGH, P.S. ALAMGANJ DISTRICT-PATNA ……….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOMETRY, EVERGREEN PLASA, 2ND TO 50TH FLOOR, 117 B.T. ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, PIN-700108. ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner had applied as a candidate of B.C. category and was also eligible for being considered under the B.C.F. category, for the post of Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.) in the Bihar State Electricity Board. Admitted position is that the petitioner obtained 81.67% of marks and it is among the highest marks obtained by B.C. category candidates and higher than the highest marks of 77.50% obtained by B.C.F. category candidate. However, she was not selected for participation in the Computer Literacy Test. The said test is a mere qualifying test and marks obtained therein are not counted for the purpose of selection. Due to mistake committed by her while filling up the OMR sheet (answer sheet) in course of the written test, she had marked “no” against column no.9 in which the candidate was required to state as to whether he/she belongs to Bihar domicile. 2 It is evident from the application of the petitioner produced before the court by learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner in her original application clearly mentioned that she belonged to backward class. The petitioner has also stated that she is resident of Patna District and her address of communication is given as Gulzarbag, Patna. Thus there is no dispute as to the domicile of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same being the position a mere mistake committed by the petitioner in filling up the answer sheet cannot be held against her so as to be treated as a person not having domicile in Bihar and thus not entitled to the benefit of reservation. Learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, on the other hand, submits that the written test had been conducted on 12.12.2010 and thereafter the candidates were called for Computer Literacy Test(C.L.T.) on 13.02.2011 but the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court on 11.4.2011 and thus she is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Board that the petitioner being herself responsible for the mistake committed by her and the answer sheet being evaluated in computerized manner by the recruiting agency appointed by the Board the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Bihar domicile. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that any order in favour of the petitioner would 3 prejudice other candidates who have been permitted by the Board to appear in C.L.T. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent-Board. Since it is the admitted position that the petitioner had applied as a B.C. candidate and had clearly mentioned herself as resident/domicile of Bihar in her original application the subsequent mistake in the answer sheet cannot disentitle her to the benefit of reservation as a permanent domicile of Bihar. It is possible that if a question is asked repeatedly a candidate may in the stress of taking the examination commit mistake in such matter and for that he/she cannot be punished. It has also to be considered that the petitioner has obtained high marks among candidates of the B.C. category and the highest among B.C.F. category, there being one post under B.C.F. category, subject to her qualifying in the Computer Literacy Test she would be at least entitled for selection under the B.C.F. category. In the above circumstances, the authorities of the Board were not correct in not selecting the petitioner for the C.L.T. which was a mere qualifying test, considering her performance in the written test and being a domicile of Bihar as clearly stated in her original application. It is admitted by learned counsel for the Board that the selection process is still not over. This court is of the view that the petitioner is 4 entitled to be considered under B.C./B.C.F. category according to the marks obtained by her. The authorities of the Board are directed to hold a C.L.T. exclusively for the petitioner, within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order of the same standard which was given to the other candidates and subject to the petitioner qualifying in the same she may be considered either under the B.C. or B.C.F category along with other candidates of the said category for the purpose of selection. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. Devendra/ ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)