1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2332 of 2011 DHEERAJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,S/O LATE BIDYA NATH PRASA SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMALA TOLI, P.S.- RAJ NAGAR,DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. ….RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.2860 of 2011 1. S.KHWAJA AHMAD DANISH NAWAZ AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SRI S.KHWAJA AHMAD ASHFAQUE, R/O BIHAR MARKET, NEAR KHAJEKALAN THANA, PATNA CITY, P.S. KHAJEKHALAN, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800008. 2. KUNDAN PRAKASH, AGED 31 YEARS SON OF SRI KISHORI PRIYA SARAN, R/O ROAD NO. 11, ASHOK NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. …….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PHYCHOMATORY, “EVERGEEN PLAZA” 117, B.T.ROAD, KOLKATA (W.B.) …..RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.2698 of 2011 1. RABINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE TARKESHWAR PRASAD, R/O- C/O H.N.SINGH, IN FRONT OF GANGAY RAI CLINIC, BARI BAZAR, CIVIL LINES, POLICE STATION- BUXAR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 2. SUJIT KUMAR, SON OF UMA SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF CIVIL LINES, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 3. KISHORE KUMAR, S/O NARVADESHWAR PRASAD, NORTH OF DURGA CINEMA, IN FRONT OF MAHDAH MAKHIA, CIVIL LINES, P.S.- BUZAR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 2 4. VIDYA SHANKAR DUBEY, SON OF SHRI SRIMAN NARAYAN DUBEY, R/O VIPRA NAGAR, CIVIL LINES, P.S.- BUXR, DISTT- BUXAR. …PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. ….RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.5886 of 2011 PRAVIN KUMAR, SON OF LATE KAUSHAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA (BALBHADRAPUR (LAHERIA, P.S. LAHERIA SARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BAHWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- CWJC No. 2332 of 2011. For the Petitioner:- Dr. Satyendra Kr. Shrivastava, Adv. For the BSEB:- Mr. Uma Shankar Sngh, Adv. CWJC No. 5886 of 2011 For the Petitioner:- Dr. Satyendra Kr. Shrivastava, Adv. & Mr. Madheshwar Singh, Adv. CWJC No. 2860 of 2011. For the Petitioner:- Mr. Promot Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma- 1., Adv. For the Respondent:- Mr. J Anand Kr. Ojha, Adv. 5 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Electricity 3 Board. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board in excluding them from list of the candidates permitted to appear in Computer Literacy Test (C.L.T.) on 13.02.2011 and 20.02.2011, although their names appeared in the first list of such candidates published on 03.01.2011, whereas in the subsequent list published on 14.01.2011, they were excluded. The petitioners have made various allegations to the effect that the same have been done erroneously by the respondents and mala fide and arbitrarily the second list of candidates has been published and sent for Computer Literacy Test (C.L.T.). In the counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board, it has been stated that the work of conducting the test had been given to the agency, namely, Indian Institute of Psychometry (I.I.P.), Kolkata. While preparing the result of written test, inadvertently the rules of reservation have not been followed properly by the said I.I.P. 4 The submission of respondents is that under the reservation policy those candidates belonging to the reserved categories, who performed well and were able to qualify for the unreserved seats on their own merit on the basis of high marks obtained by them cannot be excluded from the said list, but the same was done by the said agency which was noticed in the Board and subsequently, it was rectified. As a result of such rectification a large number of Backward Class and Extremely Backward Class candidates had to be included on their own merit on the basis of marks obtained by them against the unreserved seats. In support of the same learned counsel refers to the second list that was published for the general category wherein the marks obtained by each of the candidates had been clearly mentioned. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Board on the basis of the counter affidavit that after applying the rule of reservation, cut-off marks of different categories is as follows:- SI No. Category Cut-off 1. UR 45.83% 2. BC 41.67% 5 3. EBC 35.83% 4. BCF 32% 5. SC 32.5% 6. ST 32% A large number of Backward Class or Extremely Backward Class candidates are said to have got more than the cut-off marks fixed for unreserved category while none of the petitioners could obtain the cut-off marks. The minimum cut-off marks is 45.83% for unreserved category as per the revised list prepared on the basis of rules of the reservation policy. It is stated that all the petitioners belong to the general category. From the counter affidavit of CWJC No. 2698 of 2011 and CWJC No. 2860 of 2011, it appears that Rabindra Kumar Srivastava, Sujeet Kumar, Kishore Kumar, Vidya Shankar Dubey, Dhiraj Kumar Srivastava and Kundan Prakash have obtained 45.00%, 45.00%, 43.33%, 45.00%, 44.17% and 45.00% respectively as against the cut-off marks of 45.83% for the unreserved category and as such, none of these petitioners could qualify and their names did not appear in the subsequently corrected list of candidates for appearance 6 in the Computer Literacy Test (C.L.T.). Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out either any legal or factual error in the stand of the Board. The settled proposition of law is that the candidates belonging to the reserved category are entitled to compete with candidates of the general category for unreserved seats on the basis of their performance in any selection test, etc. and in case they have performed equally well then their names must find place in the seats meant for unreserved category and only thereafter the reserved seats are to be filled up by them. It is evident from the materials available on the record that while preparing the first list the aforesaid principle was not kept in mind and on detection of the mistake by the respondent- Board the same was subsequently rectified. From the perusal of the earlier and subsequent lists, it is evident that a large number of persons of the reserved category were wrongly excluded from the earlier list of unreserved category by including only general candidates even though such reserved 7 category candidates had obtained higher marks than many general candidates included in the said list. No fault can be found in the final action of the Board in this regard and it cannot be said to be arbitrary and mala fide to favour certain candidates as alleged by the petitioners as it was a bona fide mistake which has been rectified in accordance with law by the Board. Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Pravin Kumar in CWJC No. 5886 of 2011 submits that although no counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition nor any detail is to be found with respect to the petitioner in the common counter affidavits filed in the other cases, yet in view of the stand taken by the Board in the said counter affidavits, he is prepared to accept that petitioner Pravin Kumar's case also stands on the same footing as the other petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order passed in favour of the certain petitioners stands vacated and it is clarified that those petitioners are not entitled to any benefit although 8 they were permitted to appear in the Computer Literacy Test (C.L.T.). Bhardwaj ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )