IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10920 of 2005 RANJIT SINGH, son of Sri Anirudh Singh, resident of village- Ratwar, P. O.- Ratwar, (Mohaniya), P. S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur, at present residing at C/o Sri Uma Shankar Singh, Arfabad Colony, Naala Ke Paar, West of Surendra Sharma, P. O.- Gulzarbagh, P. S.- Alamganj, District Patna … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna. 5. The Secretary, B. P. S.C., 15 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, B.P.S.C., 15 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 2. 14.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for Bihar Public Service Commission. “1. That the prayer in this writ application is to direct the authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant in Secretariat who is a successful candidate appearing in B.P.S.C. examination vide Advertisement No. 1/93 dated 09.11.1993 Advertisement in Newspaper dated 9.11.93 which was an advertisement for the post of Assistant of 591 posts.” Counsel for the petitioner with respect to the aforementioned reliefs would 2 submit that the petitioner had secured 85 marks in competitive examination and the last candidate under the Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) category (to which the petitioner also belongs) recommended by the Commission had secured only 78 marks and as such the Commission had not considered the case of the petitioner objectively and its refusal to recommend the petitioner for appointment is patently arbitrary. Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission has referred to his counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has secured only 66 marks and the last recommended candidate under the scheduled tribes category bearing Roll No. 343980 namely Shyam Chandra Mandal had secured 88 marks. Counsel for the petitioner in reply has seriously controverted this aspect by taking a plea that the petitioner had secured 85 marks and the last recommended candidate in S.T. had secured only 78 marks. It would thus now be a question of oath against oath and a dispute on the basic facts. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s 3 verification in the writ application as with regard to the aforementioned averment in the affidavit portion of the writ application is not only vague but in fact wholly unsustainable inasmuch as paragraph 7 of the writ application where the break up of marks of the petitioner has been given has not even been verified and the entire contents of the writ application at one place in the affidavit portion has been said to be true to the knowledge of the petitioner which of course is not in keeping with the requirement of affidavit to be filed in support of a writ application where source of knowledge/information of each and every paragraph has to be clearly specified. In such a situation, this Court has to believe the statement of the Commission which is the custodian of records. As noted above the commission has also given the complete break up of the marks secured by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit which has to be accepted to be correct. Moreover the aforesaid statement contained in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit has also not been controverted by 4 the writ petitioner save and except that he has raised a technical plea that paragraph 7 of the writ application was not replied. This Court in such circumstances has given an opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to give an undertaking that if the plea with regard to marks obtained by the petitioner as asserted by him in the writ petition upon production of marks along with answer-sheet of the petitioner by the Commission would be found incorrect and if it was established that the petitioner has secured only 66 marks as asserted by the Commission in such the petitioner will have to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner however is not in a position to take this affront on the ground that the petitioner is a scheduled tribe candidate. In the opinion of this court a candidate of reserved category may have a place by way of special privilege in the matter of appointment but he cannot claim also similar privilege in respect of his pleadings in a writ petition and affidavit which has to strictly meet the requirement of the order- XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure read with 5 chapter 21C of Patna High Court Rules. This court would therefore find that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Commission. If however the petitioner can still demonstrate before the Commission on the basis of any document that he had secured 85 marks and the last recommended candidate under scheduled tribes category had secured 78 marks, the Commission will reconsider the matter and do the needful. That being so, this writ application is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)