Bijoy Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

G.C. Bharuka, J.—This writ applicant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitute of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.9.1998 (Annexure-12), This order has been passed the Respondent the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

The Petitioner, who is an ad vocal applied for the 20th Bihar Public Service Commission Examination (Judicial Section 1981. Pursuant to the Admit card (Annexure-1) issued to him, he appeared at the examination which was held between the period 4.11.1981 to 13.11.1981. The result of the examination was published in November, 1922 but the name of the Petitioner was missing from the list of successful candidates. The Petitioner was shocked and surprised. He personally met Chairman of the Commission to enquire into the matter and also submittal representation by registered post on 9.12.1981 The Petitioner applied for mark-sheet but there was no response from the Commission in this regard. The Petitioner, thereafter, sent several reminders. Some of the dates for sending the reminder are 12.3.1985. 30.4.1985 and (Sic). Thereafter on 24.12.1985 the Petitioner was favored with his. The marks of two papers, namely, General Knowledge and Commercial Law were not posted in mark-sheet. Thereafter, the Petitioner Sin represented with the request that he may be intimated the reason for not providing the marks of the aforesaid two papers. On seat persuation and further representation altimately by the impugned order dated 19.9.1986 (Annexure 12) it was communicated to the Petitioner that since he had indulged in fair means in respect of the aforesaid two papers, therefore the marks of those papers have not been included in the result and the answer books of those papers have been canceled. These basic facts are not in dispute.

One of the pleas raised by Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned order is fit to be quashed on the solitary round of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the impugned order has definitely resulted in civil consequences and has acted to the prejudice to the Petitioner. Therefore before, passing the impugned order he ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing for controverting the allegations. In my opinion, the submission is based on settled principles and must be accepted. Admittedly the Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing in order to enable him to controvert the allegations. For this reason alone, I quash the order as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application. The Respondent Commission is directed to pass a fresh rider after giving due notice to the Petitioner incorporating the charges as well as the material on the basis whereof the charges have been built up.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Katariyar, Senior Advocate appearing for the Commission, strenuously submitted that the writ application is fit to be rejected on the ground of latches. According to him the application has been filed after inordinate delay. He says that since the Petitioner had learnt in November, 1983 itself that his name has not been included in the list of successful, candidates, therefore, at that very time he ought to have approached this Court.

In my view on the facts as stated above it is difficult for me to accept that there is any latches on the part of the Petitioner. To the contrary as the facts demonstrate those only establishes latches on the part of the Commission. When the Petitioner, who had been hovering for his career right from 1983 requested for furnishing reasons for non-declaration of his result and to provide him with the mark-sheet, the Commission never took the request seriously and only made him to run from pillar to post. The attitude of a body like the Commission cannot be appreciated from any point of view.

I, therefore, quash the impugned order as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application with the directions as indicated above. The writ application is allowed. The Commission should pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the Petitioner. The payment should be made with-in one month from the date of communication of the order and receipt showing the payment should be filed in this Court.