IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3960 of 2010 1. SANJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY S/O LATE RAM CHANDRA CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- GANJPAR, P.O. EKMA, P.S.- EKMA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE ADMINISTRATOR BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate ---------- 2 09-03-2010 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. Prayer made by the writ petitioner reads as follows:- 2 “i)For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as „B.P.S.C.‟) to conduct the special examination of 27th Bihar Judicial Service (Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2009 of 1st sitting subject general studies, in which the petitioner has not been allowed to appearing examination even after repeated request of the petitioner. ii)For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna as an alternative relief to prove the marks as per the performance in 2nd sitting examination as the petitioner has debarred to appear in 1st sitting. iii)For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna to publish the result of the petitioner of 27th Bihar Judicial Service (Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2009 on the basis of his performance in the 2nd sitting of the aforesaid examination as the present one is the last chance in which the petitioner has been erroneously debarred to appear. iv)For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner will be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid prayer would submit that the petitioner being eligible for appearing in the 27th Bihar Judicial Service (Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2009 had submitted his application before the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the B.P.S.C.) and was allotted Roll Code 405906 and Sitting Code S6225. The petitioner in support of this fact had annexed his admit card showing that he was to appear in such preliminary competitive test which was to be held in 1st sitting on 30.12.2009 in between 10.30 AM to 12.00 noon and 2nd sitting in between 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. The petitioner, however, claims that when he had reached at the allotted centre at G.D. Patliputra High School at Jagat Narayan Road, Kadamkuan, Patna well before commencement of the examination he was not allowed to enter in the examination hall only because he had reached at 10.30 A.M after getting his refill ink of his pen. The petitioner claims that his repeated request to enter the examination room 4 was not entertained by the Watch man at the gate and even the Principal of the School had refused such permission on the ground that the petitioner had arrived late at the centre. The petitioner, however, claims that he had filed a representation on 30.12.2009 itself to the Secretary of the Bihar Public Service Commission with regard of his being refused to appear in the first paper of the examination, though he claims that he was allowed to appear in the second paper of the said competitive examination. In the opinion of this Court, such story of the petitioner has to be only noted for its being rejected. First of all it may be found from the condition imposed in the admit card that every candidates/examinee was directed to reach at the examination centre at least half an hour prior to commencement of the examination. The said instruction also clearly prohibited appearance of any candidate in the examination hall after fifteen minutes of commencement of the examination. In order to make this aspect clear condition no.2 5 published in the back side of the admit card (Annexure-1) as translated in English would read as follows:- “The candidate must reach at the prescribed examination centre half an hour prior to the commencement of the examination. No candidate would be allowed to enter in the examination hall after fifteen minutes of commencement of the examination.” Thus if the petitioner himself claims that he had reached at the examination centre at 10.30 AM and thereafter had gone to get his refill of ink in the market and came back to the examination centre, whereafter he was refused to enter in the examination hall by the Headmaster on the ground that he had reached at 10.50 AM, no fault can be found in the action of Respondents refusing the petitioner to enter in the examination hall as per terms and condition of the admit card itself. The petitioner being an aspirant and a candidate for Bihar Judicial service was not only supposed to be punctual in time but also was required to follow the instructions strictly as mentioned in the admit card. 6 Admittedly, even as per own showing of the petitioner he had been refused to enter in the examination hall by the Headmaster of the School at 10.50 AM and therefore it would be difficult to presume that the Headmaster of the School was in any way biased against the petitioner especially when the petitioner himself claims that he was allowed to appear in the 2nd paper of the preliminary competitive test on the same day in the 2nd sitting between 2.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. This Court would also find that the alleged protest of the petitioner to the Secretary of the Board, though claims to be filed on 30.12.2009, was sent much belatedly by speed post only on 4.1.2010 as would be apparent from receipt of the speed post enclosed with the writ petition. Thus no reliance can be placed on his story of immediate protest with regard to arbitrary refusal of entrance in examination hall. Thus, it is more than clear that the petitioner has been changing his story from time to time only with a view to get an opportunity which 7 he had himself lost on account of non adherence to the instructions mentioned in the admit card. Every competitive examination has to be conducted as per rules and instructions and no candidate can be allowed either to claim average marking or another chance for appearing if he himself is not vigilant in following the rules and instructions of such examination. In that view of the matter, this belated writ petition making such complaint with regard to the alleged denial of his being make disentitled to appear in the 1st sitting of the examination on 30.12.2009, cannot be allowed and consequently, no relief can be given to the writ petitioner. That being so, this application, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. There would be however no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)