Letters Patent Appeal No.799 OF 2006 --- Against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3519 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge. ------ Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi son of late Raja Bali Tripathi, resident of village- Charghat, P.O. Charghat, P.S. Behiya, District Bhojpur ( Bihar ) presently posted as Employment Officer University Employment information and guidance Bureau, Patna University, Patna.- Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Govt. Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, Bailey Road, Patna ------ For the Appellant : Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan and Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocates. For the B.P.S.C. : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Additional Advocate General No. 2 with Mr. H.S. Roy, A.C. to A.A.G. 2. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA --- S.K.Katriar,J: This appeal under Clause- 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 3519 of 2006, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 15.09.2006, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petitioner raises a grievance in the writ proceeding that, in view of the aggregate marks obtained by him, he ought to have been allotted to the 2 Bihar Police service, and he has instead been recommended the job of Employment Officer. 2. Bihar Public Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as “the Commission” ) conducted the 36th Combined Competitive Examination, which was held in the year 1989. The old reservation police was in force at the time of the advertisement. The same was substituted by the new reservation policy at the time the merit list was prepared, and the recommendations were made as per the new reservation policy. This led to a large number of writ petitions in this Court which were allowed, the merit list as per the new reservation policy was set aside, and the Commission was directed to prepare a fresh merit list after applying the previous reservation policy which was in force at the time of the advertisement. Accordingly, a fresh merit list was prepared. However, the writ petitioner’s position in the merit list remained the same in both the lists. In fact, the present petitioner was a petitioner in the earlier writ petition also. This is by way of background of the present writ petition. 3. In the fresh merit list, the petitioner has been recommended for the post of Employment Officer. He preferred the present CWJC No. 3519 2006 raising a grievance that, in view of the marks scored by him at the selection process, he ought to have been recommended for a post in the Bihar Police service, or at least for any one of the Uniformed services. It is relevant to state at this stage that the 36th Combined Competitive Examination was held for recruitment to 14 different services of gazetted officers. The Bihar Police Service, Bihar Exercise Service, and the post of Battalion Commandant, are treated to be uniformed services. Those of the candidates who have been given 3 preference for any one of the uniformed services are separately assessed at the same viva voce test. Those of the candidates who have been given preference for non-uniformed services are separately assessed at the same viva voce test. It is further relevant to state that the candidates for the police service and the non-police service are so separately assessed at the same viva voce test, leading to a combined gradation list. Every candidate is subjected to the same uniform selection process, leading to a combined gradation list. Consequently, in view of the marks obtained by the candidate and the preferences given by them, the petitioner was recommended for the post of Employment Officer. The petitioner raises a grievance in the writ petition that he had scored total of 585.5 marks and, therefore, he ought to have been recommended for the post of Bihar police service and, in any case, he should have been recommended for the post of Battalion Commandant, and other posts in the uniformed service. 4. During the course of writ proceedings, the Commission was directed to explain the position. It placed on record a supplementary counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below : “ As per the preference given by the petitioner and taking into consideration his non-police marks, i.e. 580.5, he was recommended for the post of Assistant Employment Officer ( B. E. O. ) as his choice for the said post was mentioned at sl. No. 4 while the choice for the post of Battalion Commandant ( Uniformed post) was preferred at sl. No. 8 much lower in order of his preference. Similarly, Devendra Kumar Singh, Roll no. 6856, who obtained 579 marks as per police marks was offered the post of Battalion Commandant as his choice for the said post was at sl. No. 5, and he made it as per his order of preference. Thus, for the sake of fair consideration of the facts, a candidate securing more marks is not able to get a particular choice service because of its lower preference, whereas a candidate securing lesser marks gets that particular choice service as per his 4 higher preference for it. 9. That since the petitioner has been recommended on a non-police post, his non police marks were taken into consideration. Devendra Kumar Singh was initially recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Employment Officer as his non-police marks of 577 was taken into consideration. In the revised merit list, prepared in the light of Reservation policy of 1978, he has been recommended for appointment to the post of Battalian Commandant on the basis of his police marks i.e. 579. Since the preferential choice of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Employment Officer ( B.E.O.) was higher than either for the post of Excise Inspector or the Battalian Commandant, he was allotted the post of Assistant Employment Officer ( B.E.O. ) in accordance with the inter-se-merit of the petitioner vis-à-vis the order of preference given by him, subject to the availability of the post as per reservation roster then in force.” 4.1) The summary of chart prepared by the Commission after completion of the selection process and was marked as Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit. The same is reproduced herein below : 5 5. It thus appears to us that the total marks scored by a candidate shall, in view of the total number of posts available for recommendation, take him within the select list. Thereafter recommendation of one or the other candidate for a particular post or service depends on his preference. In other words, the Commission by its uniform method has given top priority to the preference given by the successful candidates at the time he had submitted his application at the very inception. The position is evident from the aforesaid chart, and summarized by the learned Single Judge in his order. On a perusal of materials on record, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner was rightly recommended for the post of Assistant Employment Officer. We, therefore, agree with the recommendations made by the Commission, and equally agree with the decision of the learned writ Court. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to cost. Birendra Prasad Verma, J : Patna High Court Dated the 1st of July, 2010 B.Tiwary/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar, J ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)