Kumar Devesh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1127 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18486 of 2019
     ======================================================

Kumar Devesh, Son of Sri Gajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Sahi Colony, House No. 25, Tapowan, Road No.2, P.O.- Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur Nagar, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman.

5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission.

6. The Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

7. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, District- Madhepura.

8. Binita Srivastav D/o Govindlal, Resident of Village and P.O.- Dih, P.S.-

Baldirai, District- Sultanpur, State- Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subash Chandra Mishra ( SC-16 ) Mr. AC to SC-16 For the BPSC : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-02-2021

Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

BPSC and Mr. AC to SC-16.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final result

published on 21.08.2019.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18486 of 2019 dt.24-02-2021

3. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, with reference to materials available on record, submits

that the petitioner was recommended as the last candidate for

appointment on the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and after

publication of result respondents have modified the earlier result

published on 25.05.2019 by issuing subsequent result dated

21.08.2019. Mr. Singh has vehemently argued that the Bihar

Public Service Commission become functus officio after

recommendation and, therefore, the Commission is not justified in

modifying the result. However, he does not dispute the fact that the

person, who has been included in place of the petitioner i.e.

respondent no.8 is better in merit position as per the marks

obtained in the selection process. His grievance is that the

petitioner was not heard before altering the position of the

petitioner by the BPSC.

4. To err is human and to rectify the mistake is a bliss. If

the error committed by the BPSC, it is well within competence of

the BPSC to rectify the mistake as the Commission is not only

obliged to do justice to this petitioner but all the candidates, who

participated in the selection process and if for doing justice the

BPSC has rectified the mistake and included respondent no.8 in Patna High Court CWJC No.18486 of 2019 dt.24-02-2021

order of merit above the petitioner in the modified result dated

21.08.2019 one cannot find fault with the action of the BPSC.

5. Procedural safeguard is to ensure fairness in the

decision making process. The principles of natural justice is not

unruly horse and principles of natural justice depends on facts and

circumstances of each case. It is now well settled proposition of

law that the Court should not unnecessarily deal with the issue of

violation of principles of natural justice, if the party cannot

improve their cases by providing opportunity of hearing. The

principles in this regard had been discussed in various cases

including the Canara Bank Vs. V. K. Awasthy, reported in (2005)

6 SCC 487 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the

useless formality theory. In the present case, grievance is that the

petitioner was not heard before altering the earlier result published

on 25.05.2019. The position of petitioner is not going to be

improved by providing hearing for the simple reason that the

petitioner cannot claim better merit position than the respondent

no.8, who has been included in the select list by way of revised

result dated 21.08.2019. However equity demands that in the

event, there is any vacancy available, the Commission may

consider the desirability to accommodate the petitioner against the Patna High Court CWJC No.18486 of 2019 dt.24-02-2021

available post without disturbing respondent no.8 for appointment

as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.

6. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands

disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.03.2021
Transmission Date       NA