IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.833 of 2008 1. MD.FAROOQUEZZAMAN S/O LATE MD. ABDUL JALI, R/OVILL. BAZIDPUR, P.O.MOCHHAS, DISTT. ARWAL 2. NARENDRA SINGH, S/O SRI LAKSHMAN SINGH, R/O VILL. + P.O. KOILLWAR, DISTT. BHOJPUR 3. SHAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE BIMAL SHANKAR PRASAD, R/O VILL. URJA GRAM, MAURYA PATH, KHAJPURA, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT. PATAN ………….. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH OF ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. CONTROLLER OF EXAIMINATION, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, PATNA 7. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA S/O BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD, C/O CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, ADVOCATE, MOHALLA- MANIKPUR, P.O. MIRJANHAT, BHAGALPUR -5 DRDA OFFICER, COLLECTORATE CO POUND, BHAGALPUR 8. VISHWAJEET KUMAR S/O LATE MAN MOHAN PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA – KHARMACHAK, LAJPATPARK, BHAGALPUR, SDO SADAR OFFICE, BHAGALPUR 9. NAGENDRA PRASAD SAH S/O SRI BATESSHWAR SAH, R/O QUARTERS NO.13 JHAUWA KITHI, P.O. BARI KHANJAR, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR, AT APRESENT POSTED AS STENOGRAPHER, IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, BHAGALPAUR ………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi Mr. Shailesh kumar, Advocates For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 24th October, 2008 We heard the counsel for the appellants. 2 2. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. RAJESH P.U., PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER, (2003) 7 SCC 285, the counsel for the appellants submits that the cancellation of selection in its entirety was not proper and the selectees who were unblemished ought to have been separated from the selectees who were found to have indulged in fraud and were charge-sheeted by the vigilance department. 3. In so far as the present case is concerned, the entire selection process has been found to be farcical by the single judge. The whole exercise suffers from organized conspiracy and systematic fraud. The Chairman (present as well as past), three Members and six officials and the staff of the Bihar Public Service Commission were arrested and have been charge-sheeted along with ninety seven selectees. The fraud and mischief played by these people is all- pervasive which has affected the entire selection process . 4. In the back drop of these facts and the situation where the entire selection process is found to be farcical and result of organized conspiracy and systematic fraud, it is neither possible and nor feasible to separate the beneficiaries against whom there may not be any direct evidence of involvement. Even if few selectees (like the petitioners) are assumed to be not tainted, no benefit can be given to them since the factual situation leads to the only conclusion 3 that the entire selection process was founded on mischief, fraud, extraneous consideration and criminal acts. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH P.U., PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER does not apply to the fact- situation of the present case. Incidentally, we may note that the counsel for the appellants did not put in issue the legality and correctness of the diverse findings recorded by the single judge that the selection process was farcical and the result of systematic fraud. 6. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted and it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-