Patna High Court
Vaibhav Gupta vs Bihar Public Service Commission on 4 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.109 of 2021
Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7595 of 2021
======================================================
1. Vaibhav Gupta, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Sri Pradeep Kumar
Gupta, Resident of Milikiyana West, Post - Salon, District - Raebareli, Uttar
Pradesh, 229127.
2. Apoorva Jyoti, Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Amar Jyoti Srivastava,
Resident of 363, New Colony, Behind Home Guard Office, Arazibagh,
Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh - 276001.
3. Dheeresh Kumar @ Dheeresh Agnihotri, Male, aged about 29 years, Son of
Brijesh Sharan Agnihotri, Resident of Pratap Nagar, Kamalganj,
Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh - 209724.
4. Ambrish Kumar, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ompal Singh, Resident
of Neemka Shahjahanpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 203155.
5. Pawan Kumar Saini, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Sri Cheetan Lal
Saini, Resident of Village and Post - Dhuswa Khas, Mankapur, District -
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh - 271302.
6. Meenakshi Pandey,Female, aged about 37 years, Wife of PD Dwivedi,
Resident of Behind Sardar Bawa Singh House, Mohaddiput North, District -
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh - 273008.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman Sri R.K. Mahajan,
15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar 800001.
2. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission.
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission.
4. Pankaj Kumar Chauhan, aged about 32 years, Son of Ramagy Chauhan,
Resident of Village - Shatrudhanpur, Post - Futhawa Inar, District -
Gorakhpur, U.P. - 273202.
5. Rohit Kumar Srivastava, aged about 29 years, Son of Nagendra Prasad
Srivastava, C/o Santosh Kumar Sinha, Resident of - Barka Gam Maan Singh
Patti, Buxar, Auodoyogik, Bihar - 802101.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.109 of 2021 dt.04-01-2023
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Keshav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG 3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
Date : 04-01-2023
Heard Mr. Akash Keshav, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned AC to AAG 3
for the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
'BPSC').
2. The present application has been filed seeking review
of the judgment dated 18.03.2021 passed in CWJC No. 7429 of
2021.
3. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of Mandamus for
commanding/directing the Respondent B.P.S.C.
(Bihar Public Service Commission) to allow all
the petitioners to appear and participate in the
Mains Examination of 31st Bihar Judicial Services.
They have scored more than the Cut Off marks (in
Patna High Court C. REV. No.109 of 2021 dt.04-01-2023
their respective categories) as per the final
Answer Key published by the B.P.S.C. and are
eligible and qualified to write the Mains
Examination. However, all the petitioners have
wrongly been awarded less marks in the results
published by the B.P.S.C.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the letter dated
25.01.2021 whereby and whereunder 23 seats
have been reserved for the EWS category out of
221 seats which exceeds the limit of 10%
reservation for the EWS category.
(iii) Further for directing the
respondents to consider this fact and pass an
appropriate direction for the same as the
maximum number of reserved seats for the EWS
Candidates shall be 10%, however, a total of 23
seats out of 221 seats have been reserved for the
EWS category by B.P.S.C. which exceeds the
maximum limit of 10% as only 22 seats should
have been reserved for the EWS category as per
the total number of seats i.e., 221. As per the
rules, selection of candidates in the Prelims
examination is done on the basis of 10 time of the
total no. of the prescribed seats from each
category. In the present case, the respondents have
wrongly considered 10 times of 23 as the total no.
of seats for the EWS category and have made
selections in the Prelims accordingly.
(iv) Further for direction to B.P.S.C. to
bring on the record the OMR sheets of the
petitioners.
(v) Further to issue an appropriate writ
in the nature of Mandamus to direct the
respondents to re-evaluate the marks of the
petitioners after re-correcting the answer of
Questions nos. 46 and 128 of the 'B' Series
booklet. That initially a provisional Answer Key
was published by the B.P.S.C. on 19.12.2020,
where objections were raised by some of the
candidates to the B.P.S.C. regarding the wrong
answers of some Questions including Question
nos. 46 and 128 of the 'B' Series booklet.
However, the B.P.S.C. neither considered nor
Patna High Court C. REV. No.109 of 2021 dt.04-01-2023
corrected the answers of the said Questions and
published the final Answer Key along with the
result of Prelims examination without correcting
or considering Questions nos. 46 and 128 of the
'B' Series booklet.
4. The Court, not being inclined to interfere had
dismissed the writ petition by order dated 18.03.2021 against
which the petitioners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5481 of 2021
which was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 06.04.2021
with liberty to file appropriate review petition before the High
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
challenge was two fold. Firstly on the basis of a question which
was wrong which has been considered and secondly that the
reservation allowed for EWS category was to be limited to 10
percent but has exceeded the said percentage. Learned counsel
submitted that had there being two seats earmarked for the general
category which has wrongly been given to the EWS category, the
cut off marks of 164 which was fixed in the Prelims for being
eligible to appear at the Mains would also have to be reduced at
least by one mark and the petitioners having obtained 163 marks in
the Prelims would have had a chance to appear at the Mains
Patna High Court C. REV. No.109 of 2021 dt.04-01-2023
examination and compete in the process which has been wrongly
denied to them.
6. On a query to learned counsel for the BPSC, it was
submitted that 88 seats were available for the general category in
the said examination and 985 candidates were selected after the
Prelims examination to appear at the Mains which is above the
requirement of ten times the number of vacancies candidates who
have to be called which would have been only 880 but in view of
the cut off having been required to be brought down to 164, 105
more candidates had to be accommodated for the Mains thus,
taking the number to 985 because they also had 164 marks in the
preliminary examination. It was submitted that even if it is taken
for the sake of argument that two extra seats would have come in
the general category then also the number of candidates who were
required to be called would have been 900 by the formula from
going by ten times the number of vacancies i.e., 90 and in the
present transaction till serial number 985, all persons had obtained
164 marks and thus there was no question of this cut off mark
being reduced even if the number of seats in general category were
increased.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.109 of 2021 dt.04-01-2023
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners
fairly submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present
review petition.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the review petition
stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Arish/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
