Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1186 of 2021
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Acharya, resident of Ward no. - 6,
Bishwanathpur, P.O. and P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, 15, Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 14-03-2023
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned
advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned
advocate for the B.P.S.C. and Mr. Suman Kumar Jha,
learned advocate for the State.
The petitioner had participated in the 30th
Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) in the unreserved category and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2021 dt.14-03-2023
had secured 517 marks, the cut off marks for
unreserved category, but was not selected.
It has been contended by the learned
advocate for the petitioner that wrongly persons
belonging to the reserved category were appointed
against unreserved seats, thereby excluding the
petitioner and many others. Lastly, it has been
contended that assuming but not admitting any
contention raised on behalf of the Bihar Public Service
Commission, according to the directions given by the
Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and followed
in Swati Chaturvedi, a wait list had to be prepared
and had to be considered in the next/ensuing
examination.
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned advocate for the
B.P.S.C., on the other hand, has submitted that only
those persons with lesser marks were accommodated
who were given the benefit of horizontal reservation
because of there being disabled and such candidates
of the reserved category who had secured the cut off
or more marks for the unreserved category. The further
scheme of evaluation by the Commission was that in
case of two candidates having equal marks in written
examination, the candidate obtaining higher marks in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2021 dt.14-03-2023
optional paper would stand at higher merit serial. In
case two candidates having equal marks in optional
papers also, the older candidate in age (as per the
date of birth) would stand at higher merit serial and in
case of two candidates having same date of birth,
merit serial would be determined according to the
name of the candidates as per the alphabet of
Devnagari script.
It appears that one person in general
category, namely, Swati Chaturvedi had also obtained
517 marks, but she has been selected under the orders
of this Court as also for the reason that she had
obtained more marks in optional papers (238) than the
petitioner who had obtained 235 marks in the optional
paper.
The learned advocate for the Commission
has also drawn the attention of this Court to various
other facts including the recall of the order passed in
the case of another candidate, namely, Jyoti Joshi and
that all the vacancies have been filled by now. The 31 st
Judicial Examination also has been conducted and
results have been published. For the 32 nd Judicial
Examination, advertisement has already been
published.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2021 dt.14-03-2023
Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he has
wrongly been excluded is incorrect.
For the aforenoted reason, we do not find
any merit in this petition and is thus dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/sunil
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15-03-2023
Transmission Date
