IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.801 of 2009 MD.MOTIUR RAHMAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioner was an applicant in the 45th Combined Competitive Examination, pursuant to an advertisement published by the Commission in the year, 2001, in the Extremely Backward caste category. He competed successfully in the preliminary and final test, but his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. He represented for the purpose when the Commission is alleged to have acknowledged error in his markings leading to discrimination against him. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today, at Annexure-6 the Commission in its deliberation dated 27.8.2009 acknowledges the wrong done to the petitioner holding that he is entitled to additional marks making a total of 812 placing him from serial 98 to 91 of the merit list. Consequent to this alteration he stands above the last recommended candidate in his category at serial 92 with 811 marks . It then goes on to say that the last recommended candidate thus goes out of the purview of recommendation. 2 Learned counsel for the Commission stands by the deliberations of the Commission dated 27.8.2009 to urge that the application be disposed in terms thereof. Learned counsel for the State raises the objection that the last appointed candidate in the Extremely Backward caste category is a necessary party to the writ petition and he may be directed to be impleaded. The Court is not persuaded on the submission of the State to so direct. The present is not a case where the petitioner claims to have a better right to be considered or that he has wrongly been denied appointment in preference to another. The relief sought before the Commission was for correction of marks. What follows thereafter is a corollary. It was the Commission which was at fault. Let the necessary recommendation be made by the Commission with regard to the petitioner, if not already made within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before it. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it shall also be open for the respondents to create a supernumerary post for the petitioner, if so advised. The petitioner is held entitled to his seniority 3 from the date that the person junior to him came to be appointed. The writ application is allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)