IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9166 of 1993 HARI NIWAS SINHA, son of Late Ram Sewak Prasad Sinha, resident of village Kurthoul, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 2. Special Officer, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat. Patna … Respondents. ----------- 5. 29.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application is for declaration of his result of 1987 Secretariat Assistant examination. From the counter affidavit it appears that the result of the petitioner had been withheld on the ground that he was found to have indulged in adopting unfair means in the said examination. The respondents in this regard have clarified in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, which has also not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit, that one of the answer book of the petitioner as with regard to précis- writing had tallied in verbation with the answer book of four other candidates where as another question answered by the 2 petitioner (question no.1(Ga) also was word to word same as in another answer book. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire decision of the Commission seems to be on speculation because there can always be resemblance in writing of answers by two or more candidates in respect of the same question and thus unless there is a proof of adopting unfair means by a candidate in form of a report of the Invigilator, there cannot be a straightway presumption of the petitioner to have resorted to unfair means. In the opinion of this Court the précis-writing of two candidates can never be the same and cannot tally with each other. It is so because everyone has got his own flair of writing of a passage, whose précis is to be done by a candidate. The moment it is found that the petitioner’s answer in the précis was same and was tallying word to word with four other candidates bearing Roll Nos. 6151, 6156, 6172 and 6175 as reported by the examiner at the time of evaluation of all such answer books, the only obvious inescapable and 3 natural conclusion was that the petitioner had also indulged in use of unfair means in course of examination. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application, especially when the same relates to 1987 selection conducted by the Commission. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/