Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955:
r.5A(3) – Constitutional validity of – Challenged in writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution – Held: Rule 5A(3) provides that 10% of the total number of candidates appeared in preliminary exam are to be called for final written exam – While in Malik Mazhar’s case it was held that declaration of result of the preliminary written exam for calling candidates for final written exam has to be in the ratio of 1:10 of the available vacancies to the successful candidates – Rule 5A is in violation of what has been laid down in Malik Mazhar’s case – Fixation of 10% of the total number appeared candidates is otherwise also arbitrary and unreasonable as the same substantially restricts the number of candidates to stake their claim in the final exam – There is yet another glaring error in the rule that no minimum passing marks have been prescribed in preliminary exam – However, for the exam in question, it would not be appropriate to fix the marks after the exam was over – Cut off marks provided for the main exam are not going very low and is reasonable, and hence the deficiency in the rule, of not prescribing minimum passing marks in the preliminary exam, would not cause any invalidity in the present exam – The provision contained in r. 5A(3) is struck down – In view of the fact that the State Government has suggested amendment in the Rules and the same is pending, other questions are not dilated upon – Under the present order, since candidates equal to 10 times of the vacancies have to be called, for which time is required for making arrangements, date of exam is extended from 20.2.2019 to a date within six weeks from the date of present judgment i.e. 14.2.2019 – Petitions are allowed. Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others (2008) 17 SCC
703 – relied on.
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.