IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.812 of 2008 ***** 1. Shri Anoj Kumar Barnwal, S/o Shri Nageshwar Prasad Burnwal, R/o Madhopur, P.S. Basudeopur, District-Munger. 2. Shri Krishna Kumar, S/o Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Rai, Vill+Post- Labapur, Mahnar, P.S. Mahnar, District – Vaishali. 3. Annapurna Kumari, C/o- Binayak Kashyap, Vill+Post-Sonsa, P.S. Rahui, District-Nalanda, Bihar. 4. Bijendra Kumar S/o Shri Anandi Ram, Vill+Post Murliganj, District- Madhepura. … … Aggrieved parties/Appellants (Neither petitioners nor respondents) Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Personnel Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Vigilance Investigation Bureau of Bihar through its A.D.G., Vigilance. 6A. The Acting Chairman, BPSC, Bailey Road, Patna. … … Respondents/Respondents 7. Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Braj Kishore Prasad, C/o Chandra Mohan Prasad, Advocate, Mohalla-Manikpur, P.O.-Mirjan Haat, Bhagalpur-5, D.R.D.A. Office, Collectorate Compound, Bhagalpur. 8. Vishwajit Kumar, S/o Late Man Mohan Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Karamchak, Lajpat Park, Bhagalpur, S.D.O., Sadar Office, Bhagalpur. 9. Prakash Chandra Ravidas, S/o Late Sant Lal Ravidas, R/o Village- Urdu Bazar, Rakabganj, P.O., Bhagalpur City, District-Bhagalpur C.O. Office, Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur. 10. Nagendra Prasad Sao, S/o-Shri Bateshwar Sah, R/o Quarter No.13, Jhaua Kothi, P.O. Parikhanjar, District-Bhagalpur, at present posted as Stenographer in the office of Deputy Development Commissioner, Collectorate Compound, Bhagalpur. 11. Md. Farquoj Jama, S/o Md. Abdul Zalil, resident of village Baridpur, P.O. Kochas, Distt.-Arwal. 12. Krishnandan Sao, S/O Jhaphsi Sao, resident of village Kalyanpur, P.S. Barahiya, District Lakhisarai. 13. Prem Shankar Yadav, S/O Late Jai Yadav, resident of village + P.O. Khawaspur, Kachari tola, District Bhojpur. 14. Tarkeshwar Tiwary (Deceased) S/O Late Muketshwar Tiwary, Village+P.O. Barisham, District Bhojpur. - 2 - 15. Md. Sagiuddin Ahmad, S/O Late Mahiuddin Ahmad, resident of Mohalla-Dargah, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. 16. Kapildeo Pd. Yadav, S/O Fakira Yadav, resident of Deoria, Jahanabad, P.S. & District Jahanabad. 17. Narendra Singh S/O Laxhman Singh, resident of village+P.O. Koilwar, District Bhojpur. 18. Shailsh Kr. Srivastava, S/O Vimal Shankar Prasad, resident of Village+P.O.-Fatuha, District-Patna. 19. Awdesh Pd. Singh, S/O Late Sakaldeep Rai, resident of village Khapar, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Pipra, District Patna. … … Petitioners/Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Jagnnth Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-II For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Special P.P. (Vigilance) ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 10th November, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. The judgment dated 12th September, 2008 passed by the Single Judge is impugned in this appeal. 3. At the outset, we may observe that in L.P.A. No. 833 of 2008, the impugned judgment was challenged by some of the affected parties, namely, (1) Md. Farooquezzaman, (2) Narendra Singh and (3) Shailesh Kumar Srivastava. 4. We dismissed the appeal by our order dated 24th October, 2008 by observing thus: - “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 - 3 - 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 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.” 5. As a matter of fact, the appellants in that appeal were the selectees, who were not found to have indulged in fraud nor were charge- sheeted by the Vigilance Department. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants have been charge-sheeted and a criminal case is pending against them. The counsel would, however, submit that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that the charge-sheeted employees shall not be entitled to consideration and appointment. In our view, in a situation like this, where the appellants are facing the criminal case for being privy to cheating and large scale fraud in the process of competitive examination, until they are acquitted honorably, they would not be entitled for consideration for appointment. - 4 - 6. It is pertinent to notice here that out of 184 selectees, 97 selectees have been charge-sheeted under diverse provisions of Indian Penal Code. That shows enormity of fraud and cheating having taken place in the selection process. The cancellation of selection process in its entirety, thus, cannot be faulted. 7. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-