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.)
