Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Motiur Rahman vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 9 August, 2010
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          CWJC No.801 of 2009
                          MD.MOTIUR RAHMAN
                                Versus
                       THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
                               -----------

02 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service

Commission.

The petitioner was an applicant in the 45th

Combined Competitive Examination, pursuant to an

advertisement published by the Commission in the

year, 2001, in the Extremely Backward caste category.

He competed successfully in the preliminary and final

test, but his name did not figure in the list of

successful candidates. He represented for the purpose

when the Commission is alleged to have acknowledged

error in his markings leading to discrimination against

him. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the

petitioner today, at Annexure-6 the Commission in its

deliberation dated 27.8.2009 acknowledges the wrong

done to the petitioner holding that he is entitled to

additional marks making a total of 812 placing him

from serial 98 to 91 of the merit list. Consequent to

this alteration he stands above the last recommended

candidate in his category at serial 92 with 811 marks .

It then goes on to say that the last recommended

candidate thus goes out of the purview of

recommendation.

2

Learned counsel for the Commission stands

by the deliberations of the Commission dated

27.8.2009 to urge that the application be disposed in

terms thereof.

Learned counsel for the State raises the

objection that the last appointed candidate in the

Extremely Backward caste category is a necessary

party to the writ petition and he may be directed to be

impleaded.

The Court is not persuaded on the

submission of the State to so direct. The present is not

a case where the petitioner claims to have a better right

to be considered or that he has wrongly been denied

appointment in preference to another. The relief sought

before the Commission was for correction of marks.

What follows thereafter is a corollary. It was the

Commission which was at fault.

Let the necessary recommendation be made

by the Commission with regard to the petitioner, if not

already made within a maximum period of two months

from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order before it.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, it shall also be open for the respondents to

create a supernumerary post for the petitioner, if so

advised. The petitioner is held entitled to his seniority
3

from the date that the person junior to him came to be

appointed.

The writ application is allowed.

P.K.                              (Navin Sinha, J.)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.157 seconds.