IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6210 of 2009 1. Ranjeet Kumar, son of Sri Surendra Prasad, Resident of Village and P.O. Soyra, Via-Dalsinghsarai, P.S.-Dalsinghsarai, District-Samastipur. 2. Kumar Jayashankar, son of Sri Bhagawat Prasad Thakur, resident of Mohall- Jaiprakash Nagar, Ward No. 22. P.S.-Khagaria, District-Khagaria. ...................................... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Joint Development Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai. ................................ Respondents ----------- 2 19/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Admittedly termination of services of the petitioners has been effected in view of order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13988 of 2007. From perusal of records of C.W.J.C.No. 13988 of 2007 it would appear that the issue was gone into at great length and thereafter this Court had approved the decision taken by the selection committee in its meeting held on 10.8.2007, wherein it was decided that if a candidate would secure zero marks in the competency test his candidature itself would stand disqualified. Once this Court has already approved the aforesaid decision of the Government and on that basis each and every candidates whether appointed or otherwise have been given similar treatment, this Court cannot now take a different view and therefore keeping in 2 view the findings and conclusion in the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13988 of 2007, this writ application has to be dismissed. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel, however, would submit that the case of the petitioners is however distinguishable because they had already been appointed and if any action was taken for their removal from service the same ought to have been taken by following the principles of natural justice. He would further submit that the terms of advertisement did not envisage evaluation of the candidates on separate parameters of competency test and in fact total aggregate marks should have been only taken into consideration for making such appointment. With regard to first issue as urged, if some norms were adopted by the government and its selection committee for making assessment of the candidates on the parameters of the competency test whether the same is correct or arbitrary will depend on the merit of the decision of the selection committee dated 10.8.2007. Such decision of the selection committee as noticed in Annexure B to the counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 13988 of 2007 reads as follows:- “Minutes of the meeting held on 10.08.2007 for discussing the issues raised by Hon’ble Sri Hari Narayan Singh, M.L.A in his letter dated 27.7.2007 addressed to Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Deptt. Govt. of Bihar. A meeting was held on 10.8.2007 under the Chairmanship of the principal Secretary, RDD, Govt. of Bihar for discussing the issues raised by Hon’ble Sri Hari Narayan Singh, MLA in his letter 3 dated 27.7.2007 addressed to Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Deptt, Govt. of Bihar. The following were present- 1.Sri Anup Mukerji, IAS Principal Secretary, RDD Deptt., Govt. of Bihar. 2.Sri Sudhir Kumar, IAS Controller of Examination, BSECE Board, Govt. of Bihar. 3.Sri S.M.Raju, IAS Additional Secretary, RDD Deptt. Govt. of Bihar. 4.Sri R.B. Choudhary, Jt. Development Commissioner, RDD Deptt, Government of Bihar. 5.Sri Aditya Prasad, Deputy Secretary, RDD Deptt, Govt. of Bihar. The letter dated 27.07.2007 written by Hon’ble Sri Hari Narayan Singh, MLA was placed before the committee and the following issues raised therein were discussed in detail in the light of the Broachure. Written tests for Contract Appointment to Posts under District Rural Development Agencies-2007. i)The basis of competency skill Test for preparing the merit list of Group-3 posts is in contradiction to the provision incorporated in the concerned advertisement (Adv. No.Gra Bi (Ba) 32/2007 dated 12.7.2007. ii)There is no indication in the concerned advertisement regarding the preparation of merit list on the basis of educational qualification. iii)Allotting 45 marks for educational qualification but only 4 marks for computer typing is not justified as it will lead to appreciable difference in the final result. After detailed discussion and due deliberations the unanimous decisions take are as under- i)The above mentioned advertisement no. gra. Bi. (Ba) 32/2007 dated 12.7.2007 mentioned in para 2 that the candidates are being called for Competency Test of full marks 60 Final result will be published on the basis of the total marks obtained in the written Examination and the Competency Test taken together. The Competency Skill Test is intended to test the competency skill of a candidate vis a vis his (1) educational qualification (2) Professional achievements and also his (3) practical 4 training/expertise. This test must not be confused with the computer typing test only. Had it been so, the test would have been termed as Computer Typing test instead of Competency Skill Test. Accordingly, the total marks 60, allotted for the Competency Skill Test, are divided in three segments viz Segment I (Educational qualification); Full Marks 30 Segment II (Computer course); Full Marks 15 & Segment III (Computer knowledge practical Experience & Interview): Full Marks 15. In view of above, the basis of the Competency Skill Test for preparing the final merit list is in accordance with the provision incorporated in the concerned advertisement no. Ga.Bi. (Ba) 32/2007 dated 12.7.2007 and para 5 (iv) of the Brochure. As such the above mentioned marks distribution in three segments is fully justified and needs no modification. (ii)The above said advertisement no. ga. Ba. (ba) 32/2007 dated 12.7.2007 clearly mentioned that the total of the marks obtained by a candidate in the Competency Skill Test and the Written test will be the basis for deciding his merit serial. This does not require further clarification. (iii)Segment III (Computer knowledge practical Experience & Interview) has been allotted 15 marks out of Total 60 marks. This comes out to be 25% of the total. The marks allotted in general for practical (including interview) Test are of the order of 25% of the total the remaining are allotted for the theory part. Therefore, in order to test all round competency skill of a candidate who is required to possess specified educational qualifications and computer knowledge, the practical experience of computer typing including interview should not be allotted more than 25% of the total marks. Such format of marks distribution for competency skill test is no way discriminatory. Moreover, it is applicable to all the competing candidates and minimizes the elements of subjectivity. Furthermore, the competency skill tests are being conducted at various Divisional Headquarters under the supervision of Divisional Commissioners. Keeping in mind the variations in the infrastructural facilities available at different Divisional Headquarters and also varied human subjectivity involved, it was considered imperative to follow the above mentioned format of the marks distribution according to which the parameters of 5 all round competency skill were purposefully devided segment wise, obviating undue weightage to discretionary aspects. iv)Taking overall view and in order to avoid lopsided merit assignment, it is unanimously decided that if a candidate gets zero marks in any segment mentioned above, his candidature is to be cancelled.” The Selection Committee in this regard with the terms of advertisement and requirement of the post had held that the evaluation in competence test was a necessary concomitant of selection and any candidate securing Zero marks in competency test would stand disqualified. This principle was also adjudicated and decided in C.W.J.C. No. 13988 of 2007 by holding it to be valid and correct. As a matter of fact, it is even otherwise well settled that the employer has full liberty to adopt any rational selection norms to be applied uniformity for all the candidates. This view has already been taken by this Court in the earlier judgment and therefore this point should need no reconsideration. Sofar principles of natural justice is concerned, it cannot be put a straight jacket formula in all the cases and thus in this case once it is found that the petitioners and others had been appointed without following the uniform norms of selection and in fact even after securing zero marks in competency test, their termination of service in the light of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13988 of 2007 cannot be held to be bad. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)