ORDER
S.K. Singh, J.
1. Through this writ application, the petitioners who are the candidates who took the 42nd Combined Competitive (Written) Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.S.C’), have prayed for cancelling the result of the aforesaid written examination published on 9.10.1999 and have also sought a declaration that the entire process of the said examination be declared illegal.
2. On 3.11.1999, this Court passed an interim order by which the B.P.S.C. was restrained from publishing the result of the successful candidates who may have competed on the basis of written examination and interview. By another order dated 10.12.1999, this Court noted one of the major contentions on behalf of the petitioners that unwanted and mala fide re-evaluation of answer books had been done in different subjects, such as, Pali, Persian, Physics, Urdu, Arabic, Public Administration and Social Welfare. The contention of the petitioners was that in order to show undue favour to certain candidates the marks awarded to the other candidates in the aforementioned subjects were lowered as a result of re-evaluation by another examiner. The impression created on behalf of the petitioners was that selective re-evaluation has been done with regard to some candidates only and in order to verity the allegations this Court directed the BPSC to file further affidavit and also to produce the answer-books of the aforementioned subjects. Subsequently, the answer-books of the subjects concerned were made available, in the Court premises and by order dated 3.3.2000, this Court constituted a team of three lawyers to make a sample scrutiny of the answer-books so that the petitioners’ allegations with regard to re-evaluation of the answer-books of those subjects may be appreciated. The members of the said team have accordingly made a sample scrutiny and submitted their individual reports which are now taken on record.
3. A perusal of the reports shows that marks originally obtained by the candidates in those papers have been generally reduced by another examiner specially in those cases where the earlier marks were quite high. Marks of no candidate have been increased and the marks obtained by the individual petitioners were neither increased nor reduced. The stand of the BPSC, as per its subsequent counter-affidavits, is that as an expert body mid constitutional authority, it has the duty and the responsibility to send all the copies of a particular subjects or those evaluated by a particular examiner which; in the opinion of the Commission, may require moderation. For this purpose, the practice is to send all the answer books to a head examiner who goes through the answer books and re-evaluate the marks of all the concerned candidates so as to bring the level of marking to desired standard. According to the BPSC, such aright of the Commission is necessary for proper selection process and for uniformity in standard of marking because there are as many as 32 optional subjects each having two papers and at times, the selection process may get vitiated if uniformity in marking standard is not maintained through moderation by another examiner/head examiner.
4. After going through the materials on record as well as the reports submitted by three Advocates, I do not find any illegality in the process by which moderation in marks in all the papers concerned has been done through another examiner/head examiner. Rule 4 (xii)(h) as contained in Chapter 111 of the Bihar Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 1993 supports the stand of the BPSC as it contains a reference to a head examiner besides an examiner. Even otherwise a constitutional authority even in absence of rules can conduct its business by executive decision subject only to the limitation that such decision should not be against any law or against the Constitution and should not be unfair or arbitrary. Hence, in the facts of the case,! find no substance in the main submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of alleged irregularity in re-evaluation. One of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the BPSC discloses the percentage of successful candidates in the written examination from different optional, subjects about which a grievance was raised on behalf of the petitioners that re-evaluation in such subjects has been done to reduce the percentage of successful candidates. The figures clearly disprove the allegations.
5. Some other grievances raised on behalf of the petitioners such as with regard to participation’ of one employee of the Commission, Sunil, Kumar in the said examination and that another candidate one Suresh Rai is a relative of the present Chairman of the Commission have been fully explained/denied in the counter-affidavits and the petitioners rightly did not peruse those allegations any further. Some grievance was raised that the Printer of the question paper is required to be from outside the State but that is not being done and that the work of controller of examination was being taken from an officer who was not of the requisite seniority. Learned Counsel for the BPSC submitted on the basis of an order of this Court in another writ application dated 8.5.1998 (Annexure-E) that no doubt, the Commission is facing several problems on account of inadequacy of proper staff and officials but the remedy for the same lies with the State Government for which certain directions have also been issued by this Court in other proceedings. Such difficulties have been in existence since quite sometime but have no particular bearing to the conduct of the examination in question in this writ-application and the result of the written examination was not affected in any manner on account of alleged shortcoming or irregularities.
6. In support of his submission that a system of moderation of marks is necessary for a Public Service Commission but it has to be free of arbitrariness or illegality. Learned Counsel for the BPSC placed reliance upon a short and unreported order of the Supreme Court dated 11.3.1987 in SLP No. 14000 and 15251 of 1986. The order passed in SLP No. 15251 of 1986 only shows that a system of moderation of marks has been conducted and followed by the Union Public Service Commission and the Court did not interfere with the exercise of such system because it did not find the same to be vitiated by arbitrariness or illegality.
7. Having given my anxious consideration to all the aspects of the case including submissions advanced on behalf of some Interveners, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to show any arbitrariness or illegality in conduct of 42nd Combined Competitive (Written) Examination so as to hold the result of the said examination as illegal. Further, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a grievance in the matter when the marks of none of the petitioners got reduced as a result of re-evaluation as noticed above.
8. For all these reasons, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly-dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.