JUDGMENT
N.P. Singh, J.
1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the recommendation made by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Selection Board’) for appointments against posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and other equivalent posts.
2. On 27.6.1985 an advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and other equivalent posts by the Selection Board. Pursuant to that advertisement several thousands applications were filed. The physical test was held in between September-October 1985 by the Selection Board. Thereafter, a written test was held on 21st and 22nd January, 1986.
3. Before the result of the written test could be published, the petitioners filed a writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 3104 of 1986) alleging that answer bocks of some of candidates have been tampered or replaced, as such, the said examination be cancelled and a thorough enquiry be made by the Chief Secretary, the Home Commissioner and the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, in respect of such answer books.
4. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of on 5th May, 1988 by a consent order. From a bare reference to the order aforesaid it shall appear that this Court after stating the background in which the said writ application had been filed and after mentioning the grievances, which had been made on behalf of the petitioners about the conduct of the examination aforesaid, with the consent of the petitioners and the respondents of that writ application including the intervenes, directed constitution of a Comminute consisting of the Home Commissioner, the Commissioner Patna Division and the Secretary, Department of Personnel, to scrutinize the different answer books with reference to the grievance made on behalf of the petitioners:
3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been stated that only such candidates, who had appeared at the physical examination, should have been allowed to appear at the written examination but in fact, many of the candidates, who either did not appear or having appeared, were not found fit, were allowed to appear at the written examination. It has also been alleged that the persons, who had never applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 27.6.1985 appeared at the physical and written examinations. It has also been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the answer books of some of the candidates were changed by the officers of the Board. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid illegalities/irregularities were committed by some of the officers of the Board in collusion with the candidates concerned because of illegal gratification offered by such candidates.
4. While healing this writ application it transpired that a First Information Report was lodged on behalf of the Board against the employees of the Board alleging that they had tampered with the answer books of some of the candidates who had appeared at the examination aforesaid. Shri A.K. Bose, Ex-Inspector General of Prisons, Bihar, who after retirement, was working with the Board, is also one of the accused in that case. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against eight candidates and two officers of the Board including aforesaid Shri A.K. Bose. The case is pending before a Criminal Court.
5. During the hearing of this writ application, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the inter-venor-respondents agreed that as it is not possible for this Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, to examine such answer book with reference to each candidate who had appeared at that examination and to record a finding in respect of each candidate, a Committee be constituted for examining the grievance made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Advocate General after consulting the State Government suggested the names of Shri R.N. Das, the Home Commissioner, Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, the Commissioner, Patna Division and Shri M.L. Mazumdar, the Secretary, Department of Personnel as the members of the Committee shall scrutinise the different answer books with reference to the grievances made on behalf of the petitioners. This suggestion was acceptable to the petitioners.
6. In view of the agreed stand taken on behalf of the petitioners, the State and the inter-venor-respondents, we direct that a Committee consisting of Shri R.N. Das, the Home Commissioner, Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, the Commissioner, Patna Division, and Shri M.L. Mazumdar the Secretary, Department of Personnel, be constituted by the State Government as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of production of this order. The Committee shall scrutinise the different answer books with reference to the grievances made on behalf of the petitioners, of such candidates who had secured more than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for that examination.
7. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a detailed application pointing out the different illegalities/irregularities committed in respect of different candidates at the said examination. The Committee shall publish a notice in two daily newspapers requesting the candidates who have secured more than the minimum qualifying marks to appear on dates, time and place fixed, before the Committee and to assist in the enquiry aforesaid. After a proper enquiry, the Committee shall submit its report in respect of the candidates who had appeared at the said examination saying as to how far the allegation made on behalf of the petitioners have been established against such candidates. The result of only such candidates shall be published whose answer books are found to be in order and in respect of whom no Illegalities/irregularities are detected. It is expected that any such report is submitted preferably within four months from the date of the constitution of the Committee. It need not be pointed out that the Board shall recommend the names of only those candidates who are cleared during the enquiry by the Committee and thereafter the appointments in accordance with law shall be made by the State Government in order of merit on the basis of the recommendation being made by the Board.
5. In terms of the consent order aforesaid notices were published in newspapers requesting the candidates, who had secured more than the minimum qualifying marks, to appear on the dates, time and the place fixed before the Committee and to assist in the enquiry aforesaid. Petitioners also sent their written statement regarding illegalities/irregularities committed with reference to different candidates. A copy of such statement is Annexurb-7 to the present writ application.
6. On 5.2.1989 an notice was published in the local daily directing 482 candidates with reference to their roll numbers and category, to appear at Mirthless Stadium for handwriting specimen test on 27.2.89.
7. According to the petitioners through the newspapers published on 30th and 31st May, 1989, they learnt that the aforesaid Committee had already submitted its report to the Board. On 19.6.1989 the result of 348 candidates with reference to roll numbers was published in the newspapers. The same was again published on 30th June, 1989.
8. The present writ application was filed on 4.7.1989 for cancelling the recommendation made by Board on the basis of the report of the Committee in respect of 438 candidates on the grounds, that, (i) before publication of the result by the Board a copy of the report of the Committee constituted by the High Court by consent of the parties, should have been forwarded to the petitioners; (ii) the Committee should have submitted the report to this Court instead of to the Board; (iii) the Committee has not properly scrutinized the answer books of the candidates in respect of whom allegations had been made of tampering.
9. It may be mentioned that the petitioners of the present writ application, having agreed during the hearing of the earlier writ application that a Committee of high officials of the State Government be constituted to scrutinise the allegations of tampering of answer books in respect of some of the candidates, have now challenged in the present writ application, even, the authority of the Board to invite the applications for appointment and the procedure adopted before holding of the written test by the Board,
10. On behalf of the State Government and the Board, preliminary objection was. taken regarding the maintainability of the present writ application in the form it has been presented before this Court. It was pointed out that on the basis of the recommendation made by the Board the State Government has appointed aforesaid 348 persons against the posts of Sub-Inspector and other equivalent posts, who after appointment are undergoing training; the petitioners have not impleaded such person as respondents to this writ application. It was urged that in absence of such persons, who have already been appointed by the Mate Government on the basis of the recommendation, this writ application cannot be entertained.
11. The other objection, which was taken on behalf of the respondent, is that the petitioner have been selected by the Board and duly appointed by the State Government. It was pointed out that petitioner No. 1 “Educated Unemployed Young welfare Council, through the Secretary, Mr. Kamla Kanta pankaj”, as well as the petitioner No. 2 Ravindra Kumar can have no grievance against the selection of the candidates aforesaid because Sri Kamla Kant pankaja the Secretary of the Welfare Council did not appear at the examination aforesaid. So far petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he appeared at the written test held on 27.6.1985, but he has not asserted that he had secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for that examination. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court the answer books of only such candidates were to be scrutinized with reference to the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner, who had secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the examination. As such, only a candidate, who had secured the minimum qualifying mark at the written examination aforesaid can be said to be a person aggrieved for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. If petitioner No. 2 has not secured minimum qualifying marks, then there was no question of his answer book being scrutinized by the Committee on terms of the consent order, to which the petitioner No. 2 was also a party.
12. It was also said on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had named 22 candidates in the objection filed of their behalf before the Committee, a copy whereof of Annexure-7 to the writ application, and had stated that their answer books had been tampered. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the name of none of such 22 candidates has been cleared by the Committee, for appointment. In respect of another grievance made of behalf of the petitioners that even after the written test, a notice was issued on 11.7.1986 giving roll numbers of several candidates directing them to appear for the physical test, which was nit permissible because the candidates had to be appear at the physical test before appearing at the written examination has been cleared by the Committee or recommended by the Board. In other words, the objections taken on behalf of the petitioner before the Committee and, as such, now there is no occasion on the part of the petitioners to challenge the recommendation in respect of other candidates.
13. The petitioners had field the earlier writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 3104 of 1986), as already stated above, for cancellation of the examination, which was held in January, 1986, and in alternative to direct the Chief Secretary, Home Commissioner and the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, to make thorough enquiry in respect of conduct of the said examination with reference to the illegalities committed in respect of several candidates. the petitioners themselves agreed that instead of cancelling the examination of several thousands candidates, who had appeared at the examination. A high level Committee be constituted to scrutinize the answer books of the candidates in respect of whom allegation of illegalities/irregularities had been made and to clear the cases of only such candidates against whom no illegalities or irregularities are found. Pursuant to at agreement with consent, of parties including the petitioners, this Court appointed a Committee consisting of the Home Commissioner, the Commissioner, Patna Division, the Secretary, Department of Personnel, who were directed to scrutinise the different answer books with reference to the grievances made on behalf of the petitioners. I do not understand how now a prayer has been made to cancel the report submitted by such Committee to the Board, which in its turn has recommended the names of 348 candidates to the State Government. On behalf of the petitioners no allegation of any malafide or favoritism has been made against any member of the Committee appointed by this Court. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, a copy of the report of the Committee has also been annexed. The members of the Committee have indicated in detail the procedure adopted by them while conducting the enquiry. This Court cannot as an appellate Court examine the materials before the Committee and the conclusion of the Committee in respect of different candidates.
14. In the present writ application in paragraph 13, roll numbers of four candidates have been mentioned, who accordingly to the petitioners, had been cleared, but who had not been called for physical test and handwriting specimen test. In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board the aforesaid allegation has been denied and it has been pointed out how on the notice heard wrong roll numbers had been published due to typing error, which has since been corrected. The correct roll numbers of the successful candidates have been mentioned in that paragraph.
15. So far the grievance made on behalf of the petitioners that a copy of the report of the Committee should have been forwarded to the petitioners before the results were published is concerned, it is without any basis. In the earlier order of this Court there was no such direction, Some is the position so far the grievance of the petitioners that the Committee should have submitted a report to this Court instead of to the Board. The earlier order is clear and specific that the Committee after scrutinizing the different answer books of the candidates, who had secured minimum qualifying marks, shall submit its report to the Board on the basis of which recommendation shall be made by the Board to the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government was directed to make appointment.
16. It may be mentioned that in spite of repeated query, the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy how the two petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be held to be persons aggrieved. The petitioners had pointed out illegalities adopted in respect of 22 candidates, detail whereof were given in their written statement (Annexure-7), They had also objected the procedure adopted in respect of the candidates whose roll numbers were notified in notice published on 11.7.86 (Annexure-3) requesting them to appear for physical test after the written test was held. None on the 22 candidates mentioned is the written statement of the petitioners and the candidates, who had been requested to appear for physical test after the written test, have been selected. As such, is the normal course, the petitioners should not have any grievance against the procedure adopted by the Committee.
17. In respect of preliminary objection taken be behalf of the respondents that this writ application should not be entertained unless the 348 candidates, who had been selected and later appointed as Sub-Inspectors and to other equivalent posts, are impleaded as respondents to this application, on behalf of the petitioners our attention was drawn to the well known judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Janardhan v. Union of India and Ors. . In that case the objection regarding the persons likely to be affected not being party to the application was considered and it was observed as follows:
It was contended that those members who have secured a march over the appellant in 1974 seniority list having not been impleaded as respondents, no relief can be given to the appellant In the writ petition filed in the High Court, there were in all 418 respondents. Amongst them, first two were Union of India and Bngineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, and the rest presumably must be those shown senior to the applicant. By an order made by the High Court, the names of respondents No. 3 to 418 were deleted since notices could not be served on them on account of the difficulty in ascertaining their present addresses on their transfers subsequent to the filing of these petition. However, it clearly appears that some direct results lead by Mr. Chitkara appeared through counsel Sri Murlidhar Rao and had made the submissions on behalf of the direct recruits. Further, an application was made to this Court by 9 direct recruits led by Shri T. Sudhakar for being impleaded as parties, which application was granted and Mr. P.R. Mridul, learned senior counsel appeared for them. Therefore, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and the contention can be negatived on this short ground. However, there is more cogent reason why we would not countenance this contention. In this case appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverter by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing-up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruit to be impleaded as respondents.
Reference was also made in this connection to the case of Uday Singh and Ors. and Jain Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. Magadh University and Ors. 1980 BBCJ 616. In that case it was observed that where an examination is cancelled and re-examination is ordered without condemning any particular student no injury is caused, as such, no right is created in the students of being heard. In my view, the situation is the present case is not the same. If this writ application is allowed, then the appointment of 348 persons against the posts of Sub-Inspectors and other equivalent posts has to be quashed without affording any opportunity of being heard. This Court cannot quash the recommendation and appointments of such persons without affording an opportunity to them to dimity their appointments. If the recommendation is cancelled or the appointments are quashed, it shall amount to removal of such persons from the service of the State Government.
18. In the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenve Bihar the distinction between necessary and proper parties was pointed out and it was held that in a writ petition persons in whose favour an order had been issued are necessary parties and if they are not impleded the petition becomes incompetent. I am quite conscious that if 348 persons, who have been selected and appointed by the State Government, had been impleaded as parties to this application, there might have been some delay in disposal of this application. But if the petitioners had impleaded them this Court could have considered issuing notice to such 347 persons through the Director General of Police for service of notice on them. In my view, even if petitioners had made out a case for quashing the selection and appointments of 348 persons the writ application as presented cannot be entertained, because this Court cannot quash their appointments, which amounts to their removal from service of the State Government without affording an opportunity to them of being heard.
19. Before I part with this order, it may be stated that the counsel for the petitioners purported to challenge the very authority of the Board to issue advertisement inviting applications, holding physical test and written test on the ground that it was not sanctioned by the Police Manual. On behalf of the petitioners no such stand was taken in the earlier writ application. They had only challenged
the manner in which the answer books in respect of several candidates had been tampered or replaced in order to help them. Later, they agreed to get the answer books of such candidates, who had secured minimum qualifying marks examined by a high level Committee and that on the basis of report of such Committee selection be made by the Board. In my view, it is now no more open to the petitioners to challenge the authority of the Board itself to take steps for the appointment against the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police and other equivalent posts. On behalf of the State and Board different documents have been produced to show how only Board could have taken steps for the appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors and other equivalent posts. But as this question was never raised in the earlier writ application there is no necessity to discuss those materials in details in this writ application.
20. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.