Letters Patent Appeal No.634 of 2011
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar, Patna ..Appellants
Versus
1. Pinku Kumar Singh S/o Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, Vill. + PO Sheopur, PS Bikramganj,
District Rohtas, Pin- 802204, Roll no. 66060302
2. Bishwajeet Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Vill. + PO- Kanbehri, PS Muffasil, Distt.-
Aurangabad (Bihar) Roll No. 64030080
3. Ashutosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Singh Vill.+ PO- Ramdiri ( Lawarkchak), PS
Matihani, Distt- Begusarai, Roll no. 95010899
4. Brijmohan Singh, S/o Sheodayal Singh, Vill- Sahpur, PO Sahpur, PS Sahpur, Distt- Patna
Roll No. 60640259
5. Nikesh Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Prasad Vill.+ PO- Kapasiya, PS Paraiya, Distt- Gaya,
Roll No. 62050049
6. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishna Murari Singh Vill- Garfuchak, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Airport,
Distt- Patna Roll no. 60560337
7. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Singh Vill- Bhakhra, PO Deshpur (Amba) PS
Amba Distt- Aurangabad Roll No. 64540761
8. Shitanshu Vyas S/o Shri Anirudh Jha Vill.+ PO- Bhatihani, PS Bhatihani, Distt- Begusarai
Roll No. 95050118
9. Arun Kumar Pandey S/o Lal Mani Pandey Vill- Bahdura PO Dadar PS Mohania Distt-
Bhabua (Kaimur) Roll no. 69190718
10. Rajesh Ranjan S/o Sajadhar Prasad Yadav Vill- Bahurwa PO Kanjari PS Salkhuwa Distt-
Saharsa, Roll No. 60730238
11. Bikesh Kumar S/o Jhakash Sah Vill- Hussainchak, PO Mahkhar PS Simri Bakhtiyarpur,
Distt- Saharsa Roll No. 81060490
12. Bablu Yadav S/o Dinesh Kr. Singh Vill.+ PO+ PS Sisrit Tola, PS Nokha, Distt Rohtas
Roll No.68050906 .........Respondents
With
LPA No.635 of 2011
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar Patna
..........Appellants
Versus
Ram Pravesh Yadav, S/o Mahendra Rai, R/O Vill- Behahiya, PO Darpa, Distt- East
Champaran, Roll No. 73180040 ...........Respondent
With
LPA No.638 of 2011
2
1. The State Of Bihar through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna through its Secretary
3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
............Appellants
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Shri Hare Krishna Singh, Resident Of Village Naryar, P.O.
Naryar, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa
2. Arunam Kumar, S/O Chhatu Singh, Resident of Village + Post- Enai, District- Chapra
(Bihar), Roll No.75100528
3. Alok Kumar, S/O Surendra Mishra, Resident Of Village + Post + P.S. Bangaon West
Tola, District- Saharsa, Roll No.81080341
4. Pranav Kumar Singh, S/O Shishupal Singh, Resident Of Village- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar,
District- Munger (Bihar), Roll No.90010603
5. Suren Kumar Singh, S/O Ramanand Singh, Resident Of Village Diyari, Post Sonali, P.S.
Kadwa, District- Katihar, Roll No.86060074
6. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Surendra Singh, Resident Of Village Jagdishpur, P.O.
Nawada, District- Buxar, Roll No.67090283
7. Payprakash Kumar S/O Sri Uma Shankar Prasad, Resident Of Vill.- Lakhiboy, P.O.
Masauri, District- Patna, Roll No.60490219
8. Abhay Kumar, S/O Suresh Parasad Singh, Resident Of Vill.- Bhalar, P.O. Bhalar, District-
Munger, Roll No.90050529
9. Saurave Kumar, S/O Prakash Sharma, Resident Of Vill- Kheraihiya, Babatola, P.O.+P.S.
Akbar Nagar, District- Bhagalpur
10. Gautam Kumar Pandey, S/O Anil Kumar Pandey, R/O Vill+P.O.+P.S. Rahui, Distt-
Nalanda, Roll No.61140140
11. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, S/O Banshidhar Mishra, R/O Vill+P.O. Sonbarsa, District
Bhojpur (Bihar), Roll No.60350633
12. Ravi Kumar, S/O Parsuram Sinha, R/O Vill- Guljarbagh, Karpi, P.O. Karpi, District-
Arwal, Roll No.62210770
13. Amitabh, S/O Harnath Kunwar, R/O Vill- Chainpur Chamariya, P.O. Nawada, P.S.
Masrakh, District- Chhapra (Saran), R.No.75310218
14. Rajnish Kr.Tiwari, S/O Lal Babu Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O. Kumana, District- Chapra, Roll
No.75130209
15. Bimlesh Kuamr, S/O Bidyanand Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Balha Bazar, P.S. Mansi,
Distt.- Khagaria, Roll No.95030462
16. Raju Kr.Singh, S/O Ramashankar Singh, R/O Vill- Mathurapur, P.S. Koilwar, Distt.-
Bhojpur(Ara) Roll No.66350187
17. Anil Kumar Jha, S/O Chandra Kant Jha, R/O Vill+P.O. Madhesra, Distt.- Sitamarhi, Roll
No.72060631
18. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Rambhawan Singh, R/O Vill- Bank Mens, P.O.+P.S. Hajipur,
Distt.- Vaishali, Roll No.71160218
19. Avinash Priyadarshi, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill- Parsurai, P.O. Panhar, P.S.
Khudaganj, Distt- Nalanda, Roll No.61030596
20. Manish Kuamr, S/O Mundrika Singh, R/O Vill-Biraini, P.O. Motha, P.S. Karakat, Distt-
Rohtas, Roll No.68090400
21. Tarun Kr.Yadav, S/O Vishwanath Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Suggapatti, Phulparas, Distt-
Madhubani, Roll No.79010572
22. Narottam Kumar, S/O Dilip Singh, R/O Vill.-Kishunpur, P.O. Kachanama, Distt-
Jehanabad, Roll No.62120281
3
23. Santosh Kumar, S/O Prasan Das, R/O Vill- Belahi, Post- Lohar, P.S. Pundol, Distt-
Madhubani, Roll No.79030116
24. Alok Kr.Singh, S/O Virendra Pd.Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Babura, Distt.-Bhojpur(Ara),
Roll No.66010965
25. Sujit Kr.Singh, S/O Vikrama Singh, R/O Vill+P.O. Kundesar, Distt- Bhojpur, Roll
No.71120066
26. Sambhu Singh, S/O Rameshwar Singh, Vill- Bajruhan, P.O.- Udwant Nagar, Distt-
Bhojpur(Ara) Roll No.66200231
27. Rajeev Kr.Singh, S/O Balram Singh, R/O Vill-Samhota, P.O. Kopasamhota (South Tola),
Distt.- Chapra, Roll No.75440024
28. Mirtunjay Kumar Singh, S/O Pawan Kr.Singh, R/O Vill- B.M.P., P.O.- R.T.S., P.S.
Singhoul, Distt.- Begusarai, R.No.95020680
29. Mukesh Kumar, S/O Indal Ram, R/O Vill.- Budhgharya, P.O. Paley, P.S. Walirgang,
Distt.-Gaya, Roll No.62150327
30. Vinay Kumar, S/O Mahendra Ram, R/O Vill- Budhgharya, P.O. Paley, P.S. Wazirganj,
Distt.- Gaya, Roll No.62320082
31. Adarsh Kumar, S/O Ramjanam Chaubey, R/O At Bishnopura, P.O. Imadpur, Distt.-
Bhojpur, Roll No.66260147
32. Vikash Kumar, S/O Janardan Prasad, R/O Vill+P.O.Nardiganj Road, Gadhpar, P.S.
Nawada, Distt.- Nawada, R.No.65120102
33. Gauri Shankar Kumar, S/O Saryug Yadav, R/O Vill+P.O. Sahugarh Karu, P.S.+ Distt.-
Madhepura, Roll No.82010259
34. Sunil Kr.Ja, S/O Vijay Prakash Jha, R/O Vill+P.O. Kataresh, Distt.- Katihar, Roll
No.89010471
35. Anand Sagar, S/O Sighnath Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Karup, Distt.- Bhojpur, Roll
No.68010667
36. Vikram Kumar, S/O Sri Mohan Pd. Yadav, R/O Vill- Kanhainagar, P.S. Nawada, Distt.-
Nawada, Roll No.65080240
37. Durgesh Kr.Singh, S/O Rajeshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Dudhi West, P.O.+P.S. , Distt.-
Saran, Roll No.75340064
38. Vishwajeet Kr., S/O Bhushan Chaudhari, R/O B.M.P.-5, D.I.G. Office, P.O.-
B.V.College, P.S. Airport, Distt.- Patna, Roll No.60700026
39. Nawin Kumar, S/O Satendra Singh, R/O Vill.- Gangti, P.O.+P.S.- Kaludganj, Distt.-
Nalanda, Roll No.61220018
40. Zahid Alam, S/O Jahangir Alam, R/O Ehsania Hotel Nagni Chowk Ganj No.2, Ward
No.19 Bettiah, Distt.- West Champaran, Roll No.74050233
41. Anish Kr.Singh, S/O Paras Singh, R/O Vill.+Post Ramper Souna, Distt.- West
Champaran, Roll No.74010195
42. Akash, S/O Rambilash Sharma, R/O Vill- Vankosh & Company, P.S.- Patliputra Colony,
Distt.- Patna, Roll No.60310563
43. Washim Akram, S/O Zahiruddin Khan, R/O Vill- Baranpura, P.O.+P.S. Khairah, Distt-
Chapra, Roll No.75230210
44. Rahul Kumaqr, S/O Shambhu Singh, R/O Vill- Kolhua, Post- Maijhara, Distt- Nalanda,
Roll No.61030608
45. Alok Kumar, S/O Amod Pathak, R/O Vill+Post- Bishnupur, Deorhi Via Barhara Kothi,
Distt.- Porniya, Roll No.84010593
46. Raj Kumar, S/O Manohar Pd.Yadav, R/O At+P.O.- Katra, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.-
Bhagalpur, Roll No.89030649
47. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Harishankar Sahu, R/O Vill- Kaurihar, P.O. Kharaujha, Chakiya,
Chandoli, Distt.- U.P., Roll No.78030446
4
48. Bednarayan Yadav, S/O Ramesh Yadav, R/O Vill+Post Baskatti, Bai-Bahera, Distt.-
Darbhanga, Roll No.78110369
49. Pradeep Yadav, C/O Ramgulam Mahto, R/O Vill- Dilawarpur, P.O.- Milkichak,
Darbhanga, Roll No.78040334
50. Ajit Kumar, S/O Kamleshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Vishnupuri Anisabad, Patna(2), Roll
No.60020244
51. Ajay Tiwari, C/O Prabhusaran Tiwari, R/O Vill+Post- Belshar, P.S. Barouli Via Jamo
Bazar, Distt.- Gopalganj, Roll No.77040703
52. Chandrashekhar Kr., S/O Arun Kumar, R/O Vill.- Naya Tola Khirodarpur, Post- Fatuha,
P.S. Khushrupur, District- Patna (Bihar), Roll No.60180172
53. Bijay Kumar, S/O Badan Singh, R/O Vill.- Newtolia, P.O. Marar, P.S. Morkahi, Distt.-
Khagaria, Roll No.94020181
54. Raghvendra Kr.Tiwari, S/O Shailendra Tiwari, R/O Vill-Nijuara, Post- Moura, P.S.
Khaira, Via Gidhaur, Distt.- Jamui, Roll No.93070041
55. Manish Kumar Singh, S/O Moleshwari Pd.Singh, R/O Vill- Labhet, Post- Noomer, Distt.-
Jamui, Roll No.93010316
56. Sushil Kumar Kashyap, S/O Dhaniram Singh, R/O Vill.- Chouthi, Post- Dumraith, P.S.-
Bhabhua, Distt.- Kaimur, R.No.69040800
57. Shankar Kumar, S/O Ram Chandra Bhagat, R/O Vill- P.O. Kab, P.S.- Ranitalab, Distt.-
Patna, Roll No.60600165
58. Ranjeet Kumar, S/O Lt.Chamaru Pd.Singh, R/O At, P.O.- Sondiha, P.S. Pasraha, Distt.-
Khagaria, R. No.94050269
59. Gyan Shankar Tiwari, S/O Nanho Tiwari, R/O Vill+P.O. Dharauli, Distt.- Chandauli
(U.P.), Roll No.80050298
60. Dhanjay Kr.Sharma, S/O Harishankar Thakur, R/O Vill + Post- Gahmar, Patti Ghopal
R.N.Gazipur (U.P.), Roll No.75020397
61. Deepak Kumar Singh, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh, R/O Vill.- Chainpurwan, P.O. Navaon,
P.S. Awtarnagar, Distt.- Saran, R.No.75330113
62. Pankaj Kumar, S/O Kamakhya Narayan Singh, R/O Vill+P.O.- Goriapur, Via Dighwara,
Distt- Saran, Roll No.75310112
63. Dinesh Kumar, S/O Suresh Pd.Yadav, R/O Vill- Araria, P.O. Balaha, Distt- Khagaria,
Roll No.94010495
64. Rajaram Kumar, S/O Yougal Singh, R/O Vil- Madhurapur, P.O. Madhurapur, Purbi,
Tola, Distt- Begusarai, Roll No.95060028
65. Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Ram Swarup Singh, R/O At+P.O.- Madhurapur, Purabarai Tola,
Distt- Begusarai, Roll No.95050113
66. Dhurendhar Kr. Yadav, S/O Ramreet Yadav, R/O Vill- Dewariya, P.O. Hasvalahi, Distt-
Chapra, Roll No.75040610 5
67. Kashinath Singh, S/O Dhupnarayan Singh, R/O Vill- Mandipur, P.O.- Natwar Semariya,
Distt- Chapra, Roll No.75040505
68. Mukesh Yadav, S/O Dudha Nath Yadav, R/O Vill- Dawariya, Via Gothani, Post-
Tandwa, Distt- Siwan, Roll No.76160499
69. Murari Kumar, S/O Chandramouli Singh, R/O At+P.O. Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll
No.65050448
70. Ranjan Kumar, S/O Late Virendra Singh, R/O At+P.O.- Kochgaon, Distt- Nawadah, Roll
No.65080299
71. Jay Shankar Singh, S/O Surya Singh, R/O Vill- Fakuli, P.S.- Awatarnagar, Distt- Saran,
Roll No.75040210
72. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Son Of Devendra Prasad Singh, R/O Vill- Fatehpur, P.O. & Distt-
Nalanda, Roll No.61170202
5
73. Manoj Kumar, S/O Ramesh Prasad, R/O Vill- Bajruhan, P.O. Vedwani Nagar, Distt-
Bhojpur (Ara) Roll No.66200231
74. Ravindra Kr.Singh, S/O Satyanarayan Singh, R/O Vill- Damodarpur, P.O. Amba, P.S.
Shahkund, Distt- Bhagalpur, Roll No.87020287
75. Pravin Kr.Yadav, S/O Basudev Prasad, R/O Vill- Shahpur, P.O. Panchrukhi, P.S.
Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur, Roll No.87300079
76. Abhimanyu Kr.Singh, S/O Manoj Pd.Singh, R/O Vill- Shahapur Barant, Post- Jalalpur,
P.S. Patori, Distt- Samastipur, Roll No.80030274
77. Abhishek Singh, S/O Triloki Nath Singh, R/O C/O Prabhunath Mishra, Arare Moad,
Wsest In The Front Of Patel Residence, Gopalganj, Roll No.77050321
78. Sanjeev Kumar, S/O Chandrama Singh, R/O Vill- Tandawa, P.O. Dewa, P.S. Kadirganj,
District- Patna, Roll No.60420139
79. Kumar Rohan, S/O Sri Uday Shankar Singh, R/O Vill- Anchacha, P.S. Daudbagar, Distt-
Aurangabad, Roll No.64050589
80. Piyoosh Kumar, S/O Shishir Kumar Pandey, Residence Of Vill- Maghra, P.O. Maghra,
P.S. Deepnagar, Distt- Nalanda (Bihar), Roll No.61050452
81. Nand Kishore Singh, S/O Chaudhary Singh, R/O Vill- Khalaspur (Gangapur) P.S.
Sadokhar, P.S. Chanari, Distt- Rohtas, Roll No.69010113
82. Kishor Kunal, S/O Basudeo Singh, R/O Vill- Jagdishpur Mathiya, P.O Shahar Telpa, P.S.
Karpi, Distt- Arwal, Roll No.62070052
83. Ravi Shankar Sharma, S/O Saryug Singh, R/O Vill+ Post - Birhidilt, Distt- Nalanda, Roll
No.61180312
84. Akhilesh Kumar Pathak, S/O Sri Binodanand Pathak, R/O Vill+P.O. Marwa, P.S. Bihpur,
Distt- Bhagalpur, R.No.87280247
85. Chandan Kumar, S/O Birendra Upadhyay, Vill- Sikariya, P.O.- Muksudpur, P.S. Tekari,
Gaya (Bihar), Roll No.62140408
86. Saurav Kumar, S/O Ramendra Kumar Singh, Vill- Matiyara, P.O. Kayamnagar, P.S.
Koilwar, Bhojpur, Roll No.68180123 .......Respondents
-----------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Advocate General
Mr. J.P. Karn A.A.G. IX
Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, A.C. to AAG IX
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN
O RDER
Shiva Kirti Singh, J. The State of Bihar as well as the Central
6
Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar and
some of their officials have preferred these three appeals
under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of this court to
challenge the judgement and order of the writ court dated
19th February, 2011 whereby CWJC Nos. 14170 of 2010,
503 of 2011 and 512 of 2011 have been disposed of
along with CWJC No. 14742 of 2010 and CWJC No.
504 of 2011.
2. Through the judgement and order under
appeal, the writ court has interfered with the final result
of selected candidates to a limited extent and has
directed the respondents to redraw the final result
separately on the basis of two Physical Evaluation Tests
(PET) held at two stages. The writ court noticed that
there was substantial compliance with all the statutory
provisions and instructions in holding the written
examination and calling the qualified candidates for
PET- 1, therefore, the result of all the successful
candidates on the basis of PET-1 must be published and
on that basis recommendations should be made for
appointment against remaining available vacancies of
7
different categories out of 5058 vacancies meant for Non
Home Guard category of candidates. The writ court has
further directed that for the 5052 vacancies meant for
Home Guard category of candidates which have
remained available after appointment of only 131
candidates of Home Guard category on the basis of PET-
1, should be filled up from the candidates of respective
categories available after PET-2, for which the left over
candidates of PET-1 as well as the left over vacancies of
PET-1 shall also be taken into account for making
appoint strictly as per respective category of the
candidates and their ranking in the merit list of written
test. The separate results have been directed to be drawn
and finally published within one month from the date of
the judgement and order.
3. The case of the appellants is that the writ
court should have held that lowering down of qualifying
marks for the written test was of no consequence because
after the result of written test was published on
18-6-2010 by applying cut off marks as per 1991
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department’s
8
Circular, it was found that only 19616 candidates out of
3.65 lacs applicants have passed whereas out of 10,110
vacancies which were subject matter of advertisement
No. 2 of 2009, 5052 were meant for the Home Guard
category of candidates but only 389 applicants from this
category passed the written test and only 131 of them
qualified for the PET-1. According to learned counsel for
the appellants, only 5676 candidates including 131 from
the Home Guard category had cleared PET-1 and this
was not sufficient to fill up the advertised vacancies of
10,110 and, therefore, fresh guidelines were issued by
the State Government on 4-8-2010 to declare that
provisions in the Bihar Police Act, 2007 for calling
candidates for the Physical Evaluation Test, after holding
of the written examination, in the ratio of 1:5 was
mandatory and hence, the executive circulars of
Personnel Department laying down cut off marks for
various categories are not required to be followed in the
matter of recruitment to the post of Constables. The
guidelines clarified that the minimum eligibility marks
were, therefore, relaxed and in that light candidates in
9
each category (reserved category) be called in the ratio
of 1:5. The guidelines directed for revising the result of
the written examination simply on the basis of 1:5 ratio
of the vacancies vis-à-vis the candidates required to be
called for interview and to publish the result accordingly
on the basis of PET-1 and to hold PET-2 so as to publish
further final result within 30 days of the result published
on the basis of PET-1. The guidelines, thus, directed for
final results in two stages but with a stipulation that
ultimately one merit list will be prepared of all the
successful candidates for fixing their inter se seniority
though they may have succeeded in two different stages.
The guidelines further provided that 50% of the
vacancies should be filled up with candidates belonging
to the category of Home Guards but if such posts
remained vacant due to non availability of suitable
candidates then the remaining vacancies of Home
Guard category should be made available to open
category. It was highlighted in the guidelines that for
filling up the vacancies of Home Guard category
candidates from each reserved category should also be
10
called for in the proportion of 1: 5 for the Physical
Evaluation Test.
4. The cause of action for filing the writ
petitions arose mainly because the Selection Board while
publishing the result based on PET-1 on 18-8-2010 went
into issues relating to reservation and published the
results of only 2228 candidates and results of 3317
candidates were put on hold. Out of 2228 candidates
2095 belonged to general category, 131 to Home Guard
category and 2 to Gorkha category. The last candidate
selected for appointment had obtained 120 marks in the
written test. The grievance raised on behalf of the writ
petitioners was that the result of 3317 candidates was
wrongly put on hold only to appease the Home Guard
candidates and for diluting the standard set for entering
into category of general candidates; the concept of cut
off marks was wrongly given a go by after the results on
the basis of written test had already been published and
Physical Evaluation Test was also over. According to
writ petitioners the effect of subsequent relaxation is two
fold, firstly persons having secured less than zero marks
11
( on account of negative marking) have been selected for
final appointment in preference to those who had
obtained much higher roughly 120 marks in the written
test and secondly, such candidates who had secured
absurdly low marks (even less than zero) also became
eligible for being included in the general category of
Home Guard candidates and, therefore, candidates of
general category having much higher marks have been
deprived from being considered for appointment against
vacancies of general category candidates which had to
revert to the open category candidates as per declared
norms and government guidelines.
5. Learned writ court has considered all the
relevant materials in coming to a conclusion that there
was substantial compliance with the provisions of calling
for candidates for Physical Evaluation Test in the ratio of
1:5 and such ratio could be maintained, as far as
possible, only after the result of the written examination
on the basis of minimum qualifying marks or cut off
marks as per prevailing policy decision. Hence, the writ
court was of the view that the subsequent relaxation of
12
marks may be condoned but such selection on the basis
of PET-2 cannot be a selection on the basis of marks and,
therefore, the successful candidates of PET-1 whose
results were withheld had to be treated as successful
candidates and the candidates selected after ignoring cut
off marks on the basis of PET-2 could not be treated as
candidates selected on the basis of merit so as to entitle
them to be counted as general category candidates. Such
candidates, according to writ court, cannot be treated as
general candidates because they have been made to
qualify without merits.
6. The facts are not in much dispute and the
basic issues are whether State Government could relax
minimum eligibility marks by holding that it was
mandatory to call candidates for Physical Evaluation
Test in the ratio of 1:5 regardless of their performance in
the written examination. The view of the writ court
appears to be correct that the newly enacted selection
process by holding written examination will be rendered
nugatory and meaningless if there will be no cut off
marks. There can be no dispute that doing away with cut
13
off marks completely will not only be counter productive
to the purpose of efficient public recruitments on the
basis of merit but shall also make inroad into well
understood concept of reservation which is permitted
generally up to 50% of the available vacancies in favour
of reserved category of candidates and the remaining
vacancies, loosely described as general category
vacancies, are to be filled up strictly on the basis of
merit. If a candidate of reserved category finds a place in
the category of general candidates on account of his
merit, he is treated as general candidate and not as a
reserved category candidate. If merit is to be ignored
totally so as to appoint candidates who have obtained
even negative marks, that is, zero or less, it shall have
serious adverse impact on the entire concept of leaving
50% vacancies as general and open to be filled up on the
basis of merit alone. This shall be in contradiction and
derogation of well established concept of permitting
reservation generally up to 50% of the vacancies only. It
will also adversely affect the necessity of balancing merit
and competence in public services with required
14
concession for filling up only the reserved category of
posts by lowering down the minimum eligibility marks
for such categories alone to a reasonable extent.
7. It may be relevant to notice some relevant
judgements on the issue of fixing of cut off marks. In the
case of State of Punjab V. Manjit Singh, (2003) 11 SCC
559, while considering validity of short listing of
scheduled caste candidates by a written scrutiny test, the
Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 held that the best
candidates in different categories should be permitted to
come in the zone of consideration depending upon the
number of vacancies but the State Government may
decide as a matter of policy the measures, if necessary, to
be provided regarding reservations vis-à-vis maintenance
of efficiency in services. In the case of Pitta Naveen
Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors
(2006) 10 SCC 261, the issue was whether eligibility
conditions in relation to a recruitment process could be
relaxed by subsequent issuance of administrative
instructions. The Court held it could not be done and
reduction of cut off marks was held to be arbitrary.
15
8. The requirement of calling candidates in the
ratio of 1:5 for Physical Evaluation Test must be held to
be directory and this ratio should be adhered to, to the
extent possible, depending upon the number of
candidates who qualified in the written examination. If a
contrary view is taken, then holding of written
examination, though required by the statutory rules, may
become meaningless and redundant in case the number
of candidates is less than the number of vacancies in any
particular class or category. Further, such requirement
can not be followed strictly if the number of candidates
in any category is less than five times the number of
vacancies for such category. Hence, the view of the writ
court is correct that such a requirement needs only
substantial compliance.
9. It is also well established in law that once a
selection process commences, it should be conducted and
concluded as per rules and guidelines then prevailing and
subsequent amendment in the rules or guidelines should
normally govern subsequent recruitment process initiated
16
after amendment of the rules or guidelines. In the present
case, the writ court on account of some consideration has
chosen not to interfere with the decision of the appellants
to follow the amended guidelines although they were
issued after the publication of the result of the written
examination and after the PET-1 was held. There is no
appeal before us challenging this part of the judgement
and order otherwise, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
we would have been required to consider whether to
allow or not the operation of subsequent guidelines in
respect of present recruitment process
10. In the facts of the case, in our view the
prayer made in these appeals seeking to amalgamate the
results of PET-1 and PET-2 and to implement
reservation rules in respect of such combined result on
the basis of no cut off marks, has no merit and hence, we
are not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order
under appeal. All the appeals are, accordingly,
dismissed.
17
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
I agree.
Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)
Patna High Court
The 13th July,
2011
NAFR/BKS
