IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.290 of 2011 1. SANJEEV KUMAR @ SANJEEV SON OF SRI B.D. SINGH RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 41A, BARI COOPERATIVE COLONY, SECTOR XII, BOKARO 2. SHASHANK SHEKHAR SON OF R.S.C. JHA RESIDENT OF MAHALAXMI SADAN, NAND LAL MISHRA LANE, SURKHI KAL, BHAGALPUR. 3. P. K. SINGH SONOF RAM YATAN PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF BHARAT NIWAS AT ISHWAR NAGAR, P.O. ISHAKCHAK, BHAGALPUR. 4. MD. SALAMATULLAH SON OF MD. REYAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF FANDRAHEKALAN, REHLA, GARHWA 5. NOMAN ARSHAD SON OF ABDUL MATEEN RESIDENT OF BANIBARI, MAHINAGAR, KATIHAR. 6. MD. ASIF MOIZ SON OF ABDUL MOIZX RESIDENT OF HABIBBUR, BHAGALPUR. 7. SHAMBHU KUMAR SON OF S. P. SINGH, VIMAL SATYA NIKUNJ, RAJAN PATH BAILY ROAD, DANAPUR CANTT. PATNA. 8. ALOK KUMAR SON OF BIJAY KUMAR PANDEY RESIDENT OF 473, TILKAMANJHI, BHAGALPUR. 9. SHASHWAT MUKHERJEE @ SHASHWAT SON OF PROF. K. K. MUKHERJEE RESIDENT OF BIHAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTGRFATGIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR RESOURCES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA. 6. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER CUM ADDITIONAL SERCRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Rajesh Kumar & Manoj Kumar For the B.P.S.C. :- Mr. Sanjay Pandey - 2 - For the State :- Mr. S. D. Sanjay, AAG XII & Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, A.C. to AAG XII ------- 2 21/06/2011 All these candidates who are petitioners before this Court are persons who did not make it to the shortlist prepared by the Bihar Public Service Commission (Shortly the Commission) for selection on the post of Principals or Vice Principals of the Industrial Training Institutes which are being run by the State of Bihar. An advertisement was issued which was Advertisement No. 46 of 2009 laying down parameters based on which such selections were to be carried out. These petitioners who did not make it even upto the level of interview have approached this Court by filing the present writ application alleging many a things including breach of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Primary submission is that the selection was to be made on the basis of educational qualification, experience and interview but according to the petitioners only educational qualification was taken into consideration and persons were invited for interview on pick and choose manner. If the guidelines or the terms of the - 3 - advertisement have not been followed, the selection is vitiated and is required to be interfered with. Another contention is that there ought to have been a preliminary examination which should have been conducted as there are more than 500 applicants which would have given a fair chance to all the candidates to establish their merit and credibility with regard to such appointments. In the detailed counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Commission, status of each and every petitioners have been indicated in paragraph 15 of the said counter affidavit. A reading of the narration would show why the petitioners failed to make it to the grade and as to why they should not be considered for appointment or for being called for interview. This fact is not denied that there were 781 applicants. After scrutiny on the basis of the educational qualification and the required experience only 325 candidates were found eligible for being finally considered for the final selection or interview. The Commission decided to call five times the number of vacancies for interview and the exercise was carried out on that basis. Since these petitioners either lacked - 4 - experience or did not come within the zone of merit on the basis of criteria laid down in the advertisement, there was no occasion for them to be considered for promotion. There is no rebuttal to the assertions which have been made by the Commission with regard to these petitioners and the area which weighed against them or came in their way in the final selection. If this fact stands, then the rationale and the reasonings given by the Commission for non selection of the petitioners does not suffer from any vice or extraneous consideration. There is no material to show that the Commission has, in any manner, manipulated for any favoured candidate or otherwise. So far as the second contention that there ought to have been a preliminary examination, the Court can only observe that that is not mandatory but is an innovation which the Commission could have resorted to if the number of candidates who were otherwise eligible could have exceeded the number of 500 but since on scrutiny the total figure came only to 325 candidates, there was no necessity of wasting time and public money - 5 - for holding preliminary examination and thereafter carrying out the exercise for recruitment based on the educational qualification, experience and the interview. This writ application has been filed more out of frustration of the candidates who did not make it rather than based on any substantive material which could compel this Court to interfere with the exercise already carried out. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)