In LPA 730 of 2011 v. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Department Of Personal And Administrative Reforms
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Aug 2013
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA, VIKASH JAIN
Outcome
Dismissed
The Review application is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and on carefully examining the materials on record we find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are unable to agree with the submissions…
Judgment
Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 written examination was conducted on 27/28.2.1988. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of successful scheduled caste candidates published on 11.7.1991. The Board was abolished by resolution dated 22.10.1991 and the job of selection entrusted to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The resolution also provided that where examination had been conducted by the Board, results will be published by 27.2.1992 and thereafter all personnel and assets of the Board shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Commission. A fresh list of successful candidates was published by the Board on 4.3.1992. The name of the petitioner figured in the same. Appointment letter was denied on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to make any recommendation after 22.10.1991. Several allegations of favoritism and nepotism having been made against the Board, spate of litigations filed, the Court appointed Shri S. N. Biswas, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to inquire into the correctness of the allegations and submit his report.
Shri Biswas reported gross irregularities in the selection process by the Board opining that no credence be given to the examination and selections by the Board and recommended cancellation of the results and the holding of a fresh selection process preceded by advertisement. In the meantime some persons 3 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 had been appointed. CWJC No. 379 of 1993 was filed by a candidate whose name figured in the Board‟s recommendation dated 4.3.1992 against denial of appointment alleging that persons with lesser marks had been appointed. The writ application was allowed on 26.9.1994 on the simple ground that persons with lesser marks had been appointed. The order was assailed before the Supreme Court. While the matter was pending, in CWJC No.7141 of 1991 filed by some of the candidates against denial of appointment, the Court on 23.4.1994 had ordered cancellation of the entire results observing :- “From the report of Shri Biswas there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a great deal of bungling had been done by the officers of the State of Bihar.
It is really surprising as to how the State of Bihar had been tolerating such officers and to why the services of all such persons who had illegally been appointment had not been terminated” A prayer for review of the judgment in C W J C No. 7141 of 1991 also came to be dismissed on 1.7.1997 in CWJC No. 5884 of 1994. In (1997) 3 SCC 198 (Bihar Public Service Commission V. State of Bihar) the order in CWJC No. 379 of 1993 allowing the writ application was set aside noticing the report of Shri Biswas and lack of jurisdiction in the Board to make recommendations after 22.10.1991. The appointments 4 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 made before the report of Shri Biswas were declined to be interfered. CWJC No. 5888 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner alleging that persons with lesser marks had been appointed. It was directed to be heard along with CWJC No. 7141 of
1991. Unfortunately it was not placed for consideration along with the latter. The writ application of the petitioner was dismissed on 25.2.2011 by a reasoned order following Bihar Public Service Commission [supra]. L P A no. 730 of 2011 against the same was dismissed on 17.11.2011 again noticing the order in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). The petitioner then preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6587 of
2012. It was submitted on his behalf that his case was different from that of the petitioner in CWJC No. 7141 of 1991 which had not been properly appreciated. Leave was sought to withdraw the Special Leave Petition for filing a review petition. Leave was granted and the Special Leave Petition dismissed as withdrawn. It was observed that if the petitioner satisfied this Court that his case was different from that in CWJC No. 7141 of 1991, his writ petition should be decided separately. The Review application filed originally did not contain any material or pleadings for distinguishing the case of the petitioner from that in CWJC No. 7141 of 1991. A bare 5 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 reading of the pleadings demonstrates that it is cryptic and perfunctory mentioning only the date of advertisement, examination, publication of results and the appointment of persons with lesser marks.
When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner a supplementary affidavit was filed. It states that he had applied in the scheduled caste category based on the recommendation dated 4.3.1992 and the appointment of persons with lesser marks. The distinguishing feature from CWJC No. 7141 of 1991 was that the latter had been filed for quashing the recommendation dated 11.7.1991 while the claim of the petitioner was based on appointment of persons with lesser marks. No other distinguishing feature has been pleaded or argued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty having been granted by the Supreme Court to file the review application, the Court must consider his claims entirely afresh. When we queried the counsel for the petitioner that the order in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra), does not find any reference in the Special Leave Petition preferred by him, it was submitted that it shall be presumed that the leave to file a review application was granted after considering the same.
The review application does not make any statement regarding the order of the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). Counsel the State submitted that any 6 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 reconsideration of the claims of the petitioner shall be in teeth of the directions and findings in Bihar Public service Commission (supra). In CWJC no. 5340 of 1995 [Atulya Kumar V. State of Bihar, while dismissing the writ application it was observed at paragraph 4 that in the facts and circumstances of the case even if a candidate had secured higher marks he could not be appointed relying on the observations contained in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). In Bihar Public Service Commission (supra) it was observed :-
Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and on carefully examining the materials on record we find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr Sharan, the learned counsel for the respondents. True it is, this Court did not entertain a special leave petition on 5-9-1994 when the State of Bihar had challenged an order of the Patna High Court. But it is crystal clear that when the Court did not entertain the special leave petition, the report of Shri Biswas had not been brought to the notice of the Court nor the Court was aware of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed by the Subordinate Services Selection Board in the matter of making selections and recommending names for different posts in Class III. We have no doubt in our mind that if the irregularities and illegalities found by Shri Biswas would have been placed before the Court, the Court would not have hesitated in entertaining the matter and cancelling the lists altogether.
Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed gross error of law in issuing the the Public Service mandamus Commission and the State to give appointment requiring 7 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 indicates including jurisdiction respondent‟s to the respondent even after going through the in no Biswas Committee Report which uncertain irregularities and illegalities committed by the Service Selection Board in the matter of holding the examination and drawing the list of successful candidates. Further the Board having been abolished by the Government decision dated 22-10-1991 had no further jurisdiction to publish a revised list of 238 persons on 28-2-1992 and in recommending 15 candidates on 4-3-1992 including the list of 15 persons respondent. The said containing recommended on 4-3-1992 is a list wholly persons without recommended thereunder respondent had no enforceable right for which a mandamus could have been issued by the High Court.
In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order of the Patna High Court and the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. We also further direct the Bihar Public Service Commission need not take any further action upon the lists prepared by the State Service Selection Board nor recommend any names for different posts in Class III from three lists. But so far as the appointments already made from out of the said lists, since in several cases appointments have been made pursuant to the orders of the Court and in some cases those orders have not been interfered with by this Court though not being aware of the illegalities and irregularities in the matter of conducting the examination and preparation of the list of successful candidates, we are not annulling already made……..” appointments Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties, we are not satisfied that any ground distinguishing the case of the petitioner from the order in CWJC No.
Operative part
7141 of 1991 has been made out to invoke the Review jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioner that 8 Patna High Court C. REV. No.153 of 2012 (12) dt.19-08-2013 any contention, submission or grounds though taken in the original proceedings have not been considered. The aspects of the recommendation made on 4.3.1992 after dissolution of the Board and the reason why appointments with lesser marks were not interfered with stand fully discussed and explained in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). The matter having been settled by the Supreme Court, nothing has been argued before us why and how the case of the petitioner is not covered by the orders of the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). The Review application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) P. Kumar/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Review application is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 19 Aug 2013. The bench was NAVIN SINHA, VIKASH JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.