Service Law – Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010 – The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) issued an advertisement to 1569 vacancies in Class III posts, in various departments of the State – The examinations were conducted – The successful candidates of the preliminary examination appeared for the main examinations – There were objections to some of the model answers to the main examination – The BSSC constituted a expert Committee to examine the objections; this report suggested changes with respect to 13 questions – The acceptance of the report meant consequential revision of the results – Writ petitions – The Single Judge of the High Court directed inclusion of 915 candidates as result of Expert Committee report and directed BSSC to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates after deleting four other questions – The Division Bench of High Court further interfered with the judgment of the Single Judge by revising four more questions – Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed BSSC to appoint an Expert Committee in order to determine the correct answers to the questions appended – The report was submitted before the Supreme Court, the BSSC contended that complying the order of the Division Bench of the High Court would result in administrative chaos as the exercise would drastically alter the final result – Held: Given the clear declaration of law in the various Supreme Court judgments, the unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench) has contributed to the chaos – No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing which justified the approach that was adopted – The BSSC acted correctly in the first instance in referring the answers to a panel of experts – If there were justifiable doubts about recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed questions to another expert panel – That was not done; The ‘corrections’ indicated by the Single Judge were accepted by the BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed – The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh and compounded the matter further by not referring the questions to any panel of experts – The High Court interference has not resulted in any finality and the entire selection process is under uncertainty – The committee of experts appointed by the Supreme Court has made its recommendations and the exercise indicates that previous reevaluations by the High Court were not correct and the said recommendations are accepted – The BSSC is directed to evaluate and publish results afresh, in light of the recommendations and reports of the experts constituted by the Supreme Court and not to disturb appointments made previously pursuant to directions of the Single Judge of the High Court – In case the number of selected candidates exceeds the vacancies available, the State would accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadres as against the future vacancies – Accordingly, judgment of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside. Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017] 12 SCR 95; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Central Board of Secondary Education Through
Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 : [2011] 10 SCR 286 – relied on. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27 : [1985]
1 SCR 29; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010] 7 SCR 189; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC
602 : [2011] 3 SCR 746; Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1610 – referred to.
Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2012 (1) PLJR
542 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.