CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.5888 OF 1994 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ARVIND KUMAR, SON OF SITA RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTA BARIYARPUR, P.S. CHATAUNI, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. ……….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIHAR, NEHRU MARG, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BIHAR, NEHRU MARG, PATNA. ……… RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. UMA KANT SHUKLA, ADV. FOR THE STATE : - MR. TEJ BAHADUR SINGH, AAG -7 MR. SHASHI PRIYA PATHAK, ACT TO AAG7 FOR THE BPSC : - MR. MD. NADEEM SERAJ, ADVOCATE ----------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ************ Mridula Mishra, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel appearing for BPSC. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction for appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector of Excise on the basis of panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 8/87 read with letter of the Excise Department dated 10.4.1992. In pursuance of the Advertisement No. 8/87 2 petitioner had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Excise. Through this advertisement post of Assistant Jailor in the Department of Prison, Sub-Inspector in the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Development Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Sankalak in the Planning Department had been advertised. The petitioner had applied in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. The Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board published list of 63 successful candidates on 11.7.1991 in which name of petitioner was not there. The petitioner made enquiries and came to know that candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner have been recommended in the first list of recommended candidates. In support of this contention the petitioner has specifically mentioned that Dharmdeo Prasad having obtained 172 marks, Birendra Mohan Sinha having obtained 172 marks, Birendra Kumar having obtained 171 marks and Jawahar Prasad having obtained 171 marks were recommended by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board as successful candidates. Petitioner obtaining 174 marks was left and not recommended by the Board. Subsequently Board came out with a revised list on 4.3.1992 in which 3 name of petitioner appeared in the merit list. Despite the fact that his name was recommended, no appointment letter was issued. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Excise and Prohibition, Respondent No. 2, from which it transpires that Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board recommended 73 successful candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise in the first list on 15.7.1991. Those candidates were issued appointment letters. Out of those candidates 63 candidates were appointed on verification of their testimonials and certificates. Some of the candidates were not issued appointment letter for specific reasons. Subsequently, second list was published on 29.2.1992 in which petitioner’s name was also there but appointment letter could not issued for the reason that second list of recommendation was completely illegal as by that time the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board had already been dissolved on 22.10.1991. Result published by Bihar Subordinate Service Selection Board and recommendation made by it of successful candidates, was subjected to serious controversy. Allegations were 4 made regarding irregularities committed by the ‘Board’ in observing process of selection and recommendation of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise. Department of Excise in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms requested Bihar Public Service Commission for holding proper enquiry in the matter. In the meantime, some of the candidates filed CWJC No. 7141 of 1991, challenging the order passed by the Department of Excise, in which by order dated 23.4.1994 a direction was issued to the Respondents-State for cancellation of entire result and appointment made against Advertisement No. 8/87. Direction was issued for initiating fresh process of selection. Excise Department thereafter sought for a direction from the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. In the meantime, newly appointed Sub-Inspectors filed CWJC No. 5884 of 1994 for review of the order dated 23.3.1994 passed in CWJC No. 7141 of 1991. In the review application an order was passed not to cancel the appointment made in pursuant to Advertisement No. 8/87. Against that order BPSC filed Civil Appeal No. 14753 of 1995 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, in terms 5 of ‘Biswas Committee’s report, was of the view that gross irregularities had been committed, in selection and recommendation of names of successful candidates. It was held that the ‘Board’ having been abolished by the Government decision dated 22nd October, 1991 had no further jurisdiction to publish a revised list of 238 successful candidates on 28th February, 1992 and in recommending 15 candidates on 4th March, 1992. It was also held that the recommendies of the second list had no enforceable right for which a mandamus could have been issued by the High Court. Regarding candidates, who have already been appointed and continuing pursuant to the orders of the High Court, it was held that their appointment will not be annulled. Apex Court’s finding regarding recommendies of the second list, like petitioner, was that they have no enforceable right for which any direction can be issued for their appointment. So far petitioner’s claim that his name ought to have been in the first list, having higher marks than the recommended candidaties Dharmendra Kumar, Birendra Mohan Sinha, Birendra Kumar, Jawahar Prasad is concerned, his assertion is not clear, as there is nothing to 6 show that these candidates also belonged to the same category to which petitioner belonged. It is also not clear that these candidates were entitled for similar benefit of reservation, to which petitioner was entitled, or they were declared successful and recommended, as candidate belonging to other reserved category. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this application. However, in case petitioner is entitled for any benefits in pursuance to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14753 of 1995, he can claim at the appropriate time. This application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Dated 25th February, 2011,DKS/ N.A.F.R. (Mridula Mishra, J.)