IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.2521 of 2011
Ranjeet Kumar
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
MJC No.2547 of 2011
Upendra Rao
Versus
Brajesh Kumar & Ors
with
MJC No.2301 of 2011
Upendra Rao
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
with
MJC No.2575 of 2011
Nishant Kumar
Versus
Mr. Uday Singh Kumawat
-----------
3 11-07-2011 The Secretary, Transport is present in court as
per our earlier directions.
2. In compliance of directions issued earlier
appointment letter contained in memo no. 2914 dated
9-7-2011 has been produced before the court showing
that all the 20 candidates recommended by the
Commission for appointment to the post of Motor
Vehicles Inspector in pursuance of advertisement no.
2607/2007 have been offered appointment and they can
join the post within one week or at the maximum within
one month.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have
2
taken strong objection to the stipulation in Clause 7 of
the appointment letter in which reference has been made
to LPA nos. 905, 906 and 910 of 2010 and, particularly,
to order passed on 1-9-2010.
4. According to learned counsel for the State,
since this court granted liberty in the order dated
21-5-2010 passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals
that as an additional measure to ensure that no fake
claims are allowed to succeed relating to driving license,
driving test should also be held. According to him this
would be related to those who had already been selected
and found fit by the Commission but according to
learned counsel for the petitioners it stands clarified by
further observations in the same paragraph that
`Prapatra-ii’ cannot be ignored in view of rules of
advertisement and, hence, “the dispute relating to driving
license may again be re-scrutinized by the Commission/
Committee”.
5. Prima facie only the candidatures who were
under dispute on account of doubt in respect of their
driving license could be re-scrutinized by the
3
Commission/ Committee and the observation that as an
additional measure driving test may also be held relates
only to the candidates whose driving licenses were under
dispute. This aspect, according to learned counsel for the
petitioners, has been clarified by this court on more than
one occasion but again such condition has been imposed
by the Transport Secretary, Government of Bihar in
Clause 7 of the appointment letter and not as an
independent decision of the State Government to hold
such driving test but as an obligation allegedly arising
out of orders of this court.
6. According to petitioners whatever tests were
required under the rules or advertisement had to be taken
by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and there was
no provision in the advertisement or in the rules to
subject the recommended candidates to further driving
test as is being done under Clause 7 of the appointment
letter.
7. Clearly, a dispute has arisen as to whether
afresh conditions can be added beyond the rules or the
terms of advertisement by the State or not and whether
4
the requirement of selecting appropriate candidates
would be duty of the Commission or of the State.
8. According to learned counsel for the
Commission only the driving license had to be looked
into and verified which was done by the Commission in
the case of 20 successful candidates recommended for
appointment. He submits that any further test beyond the
rules and advertisement will open Pandora’s box and
Commission should not be called upon to take up the
cases of the recommended candidates afresh for
subjecting them to any further test.
9. In the facts of the case, before deciding the
issues raised above, one way or the other, we would like
to know the stand of the State Government as regards
necessity of holding the test in respect of 20
recommended candidates and whether this shall be a
standard procedure for subjecting all the candidates for
future recruitment or is it by way of one time measure
only in respect of 20 selected candidates. We would also
like to have a clear stand of the State Government as to
who, according to them, is competent to take the test, if it
5
is permissible, the Transport Department or the
Commission. A clear stand on both the issues should be
presented before this court within two weeks.
10. Put up under the same heading after two
weeks.
11. In the meantime, proposed test shall be
kept in abeyance but if the candidates make themselves
available, they shall be allowed to join their posts.
12. Personal appearance of the Secretary,
Department of Transport is dispensed with for the
present.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
BKS/- (Shivaji Pandey, J.)