IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.348 of 2011 1. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna 4. Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Sanjiv Kumar Chandhariyavi son of Nawal Kishore Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Kagazi Town, Biharsharif, P.S. Biharsharif, Nalanda 2. The State of Bihar 3. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. N. Ojha, advocate Mr. Uday Kumar, advocate ------------- 4 21-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent no.1 and learned counsel for the State. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 17-01-2011 whereby writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 bearing CWJC no. 1792 of 2005 has been disposed of. The impugned order passed by the appellant Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as `the Commission’) dated 7-1-2004, by which the candidature of the writ petitioner in respect of 25th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination had been cancelled on the allegation of impersonation has been quashed. Further, the Commission has been directed to declare the result of Patna High Court LPA No.348 of 2011 (4) dt.21-07-2011 2 the writ petitioner and make effective recommendation from the same panel and from the same date for the appointment of the writ petitioner treating him to be a candidate from 25th batch of Bihar Judicial Officers, within three weeks. The only issue which fell for consideration before the writ court was whether the answer sheets of the petitioner available with the Commission were in the handwriting of the writ petitioner or in the handwriting of somebody else. From the order of the writ court, it is clear that although the writ petitioner had not been able to supply specimen handwriting to the Commission earlier, he wrote two pages as directed by the Division Bench on the earlier occasion and on the direction of the writ court he again wrote several pages within the premises of the High Court under supervision of the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Court and thereafter on comparison of the specimen handwriting and the writing on the answer sheets, the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna has reported that the handwriting on the answer sheets tallies with the handwriting on the specimen sheets. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is not clear whether the identity of the writ petitioner was carefully checked when he was asked to write several pages in the Chambers of the Hon’ble Judge under supervision of the Registrar Patna High Court LPA No.348 of 2011 (4) dt.21-07-2011 3 (Vigilance) of the Court. In order to appreciate this submission we have perused the various orders passed by the writ court on different dates and have also put questions to the counsels of the parties who earlier appeared before the writ court. It is obvious that no such doubt was raised on behalf of Commission or the State and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has stated that it was the writ petitioner who appeared on various dates in the Court and the Registrar (Vigilance) was called in Court and he had seen the writ petitioner before the specimen handwriting was obtained from the writ petitioner in the Chambers. From the orders passed by the writ court and from all the relevant material including the signature of the writ petitioner on the specimen writings which has been counter signed by the Registrar (Vigilance), we are satisfied that writ petitioner had written the specimen writings. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we also perused two sheets of writings of the writ petitioner kept in the record which he had written in court on the asking of the Division Bench on the earlier occasion. The said handwriting, signature thereupon and the specimen handwriting obtained from the writ petitioner in Chambers as well as the signature upon those pages, in our view also appear to be from the same hand. Hence, Patna High Court LPA No.348 of 2011 (4) dt.21-07-2011 4 we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the writ court. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that if writ petitioner is appointed on the basis of marks obtained by him on the recommendation made by the Commission as per direction of the writ court, he would be given benefit of increments for fixing his pay scale notionally so that he gets salary for work after appointment, in parity with his batch mates of 25th batch of Bihar Judicial Officers. As regards seniority and claim of promotions etc., the appropriate authority shall take decision in accordance with law. Bimalanshu Kumar Singh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)