IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.254 of 2009 1. PRANAVA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI DEEP NARAYAN SINGH, R/O 2M/56, MAHATMA GANDHI NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S. AAGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. NITYANAND SINGH, S/O JAGAT SINGH R/O VILLAGE NIRAKHPUR, P.S. PALIGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. 3. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRIMAN NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDING AT C/O RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, S.D.O.ROAD, HAJIPUR, P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 4. NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANALI, P.S.HARPUR, DISTRICT- MUGNER. 5. DURGA KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAMDEV SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARKANDA, P.S.-PIRPAITI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 6. NASIM ALAM, SON OF MD. SALIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SHAFI CHAPRA, P.O.+ P.S. BARHARIA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 7. PRAKASH NARAYAN, SON OF LATE SHIV DHARI RAM, RESIDENT OF GOURI SHANKAR COLONY, GULZARBAGH, P.S. ALAMGANJ, PATNA. 8. DHARAMVIR PRASAD, SON OF SRI BAIJU SAHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –SALAMPUR, P.S. SAHARGHAT, DISTRICT, MADHUBANI. 9. PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF RAMAKANT PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SONDIHA, P.S. PASHRAHA, DISTRICT-KHAGARAI. 10. DILIP KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VISHWAMBHAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARHBASMARI , P.S. SUPAUL, DISTRICT SUPAUL. 11. BINIT KUMAR, SON OF SRI JANARDAN PRASAD JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GAMITOLA, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 12. MANISH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF PRABHA SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF RATHORE MANSION, THAKURGANJ, P.S. THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ. 13. RAKESH KUMAR, SON OF KRISHNA NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PALI P.S.- KASHICHAK, DISTICT- NAWADA. 14. ZOOLEKHA HUSMAT, DAUGHTER OF SYED MOHAMMAD ABU NASAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEONA, NH-31, P.O. TILRATH, P.S.BARAUNI REFINERY, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 15. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF MATHURA PRASAD SINHA, RESIDENT OF MAUSAURHI P.S. DISTRICT PATNA. 16. SANJAY KUMAR VERMA, SON OF DR. KAMAL KISHORE VERMA, RESIDENT OF JAGDEO PATH, P.S. RUKANPURA, PATNA. 17. NARENDRA MOHAN, SON OF LATE RAMPUKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF PRABHAT APARTMENT,201 VIVEKANAND MARG, BORING ROAD, P.S.SK.PURI, PATNA. 18. PROMOD KUMAR CHOUDHRY, SON OF SHIRI HARI KANT CHOUDHRY, RESIDING AT C/O RAM PRAVESH SHARMA, MAHESH NAGAR, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, PATNA. …..INTERVENOR PETITIONERS / REVIEW PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 15 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA- 800001. - 2 - 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 15 JAWAHARLAL MARG, PATNA-800001. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 , JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA- 800001. ….APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 4. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHER BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALIPUR, P.S. ARA (M), DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ….RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioners : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh : Mr. Chandan Jha For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, GP 17 For the Commission : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 3 ------ 07. 11.02.2010 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Kishore for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Government Pleader No.17, for respondent nos.5 and 6. We do not feel the necessity of issuance of notice to respondent no.4 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. This application has been filed for review of the judgment dated 19.05.2009, passed by the present Bench in L.P.A.No.178 of 2009( The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Mritunjay Kumar & Ors. with its other analogous appeals). A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this application may be indicated. The present petitioners were the candidates at the preliminary test of the combined - 3 - competitive examination for 48th to 52nd batches conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the „Commission‟). A number of the writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the validity and purity of the preliminary test. The writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 30.01.2009, whereby the writ petitions were allowed, the entire preliminary test was cancelled, and the Commission was directed to hold a fresh test. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Commission preferred a number of appeals in this Court which were allowed by us by the aforesaid judgment dated 19.05.2009, whereby we disagreed with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We observed in the judgment that certain errors had taken place while conducting the test, but the Commission had taken adequate steps to remove the anomalies so that no genuine and bona fide candidate suffered any prejudice. Further remedial measures were taken by the Court whereby 94 candidates were allowed to appear at a freshly conducted preliminary test. Aggrieved by our judgment, some of the writ petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court which was disposed of by order dated 28.8.2009, passed in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) CC 11384-11389/2009, permitting them to file a review application in this Court. That is how the present petitioners have preferred the present review application. - 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court had entertained the supplementary counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the Commission in the midst of the arguments, copies of which were not supplied to the present petitioners resulting in erroneous judgment of this Court. In his submission, had copies of the same been supplied to the learned counsel for the present petitioners, they would have been able to advance effective submission to counteract the effect of the supplementary counter affidavit which may possibly have led this Court to come to a different conclusion. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of the record that the present petitioners had filed I.A.No.1317 of 2009, to be impleaded as party respondents. The same was never pressed before us, as a result of which there was no obligation of the Commission and its learned counsel to serve copies of the supplementary counter affidavit on the learned counsel for the present petitioners. It further appears to us from a perusal of the materials on record that copies of the said supplementary counter affidavit were duly served on learned counsel for the parties who had advanced effective submissions in support of their respective stands which was duly considered by this Court. It is further relevant to state, as is evident from the cause title of the present judgment that Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel - 5 - for the present petitioners, was present during the course of hearing in the appeal before us. It is further relevant to state that copies of the relevant supplementary counter affidavit were served on learned counsel for the parties on 15.5.2009. The order dated 15.5.2009, passed by us in the L.P.A. proceedings, is reproduced hereinhelow: “Heard in part. Let learned counsel for the appellants place on record copies of two sets of the report of all the Centre Superintendents as well as the report of the committee which included Dr. B.K.Jha after supplying the copies thereof to learned counsel for the respondents. Put up on 18.5.2009.” The matter was heard on 15.5.2009, 18.5.2009 and 19.5.2009. All the parties had, therefore, adequate opportunity to consider the supplementary counter affidavit and file a rejoinder to the same, if so advised. Indeed, a rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit was not filed by anyone of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners today has taken us through the supplementary counter affidavit in an effort to satisfy us that, had they got the opportunity during the course of hearing of the appeal to rebut the same, this Court might have reached a different conclusion. We regret our inability to accede to the submission. We have today applied our minds afresh to the submission and we reach the same - 6 - conclusion as in the said judgment in appeals. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by us in paragraph 18 of our judgment in the appeals. It also appears to us that the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is really in the realm of appreciation of evidence. We had perused the supplementary counter affidavit. The factual foundation for which were adequately laid in the memorandum of appeal, and was more than adequately thrashed during the course of oral submissions at the Bar. Indeed the ground advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is really in the realm of appreciation of evidence and cannot be a ground for review. In order to ensure complete justice to the parties and to allay the grievances of the present petitioners, we have really applied ourselves to the merits of the contentions and do not find any merit in the same . We cannot help observing that we can quite see, and shall not permit, misuse of the present proceedings by the candidates who have failed on merits. 94 candidates were permitted by this Court to appear at a freshly conducted preliminary test. Enormity of holding a selection process of this magnitude has been discussed in paragraph 26 of the judgment. After we disposed of the appeals permitting the Commission to proceed ahead with the second round of written test, the same has made substantial headway. Learned counsel for the Commission - 7 - informs us that the second round of the written test has already taken place and the results are about to be published on the basis of which candidates would be called for viva voce test. The larger public purpose, namely, existence of such a large number of vacancies have been discussed in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment. In the result, we do not find any merit in this review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )