ORDER : The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment to a suitable post on the basis of his position in the selection test held by the Bihar Public Service Commission ('the Commission' hereinafter) for that purpose. 2. The facts are brief and without any controversy and can be stated thus. The Commission issued an advertisement for Graduate level (Special) Competitive Examination, 1994. The advertisement which was confined to candidates from scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and extremely backward class was for appointments on 22 different posts in different Government departments. Graduation was the basic qualification required for all the posts but some posts under the advertisement, having regard to their nature of work, required the candidate to be a graduate with certain specified combination of subject or to have passed certain subjects at certain levels. For example, for the post of Inspector, Weights & Measures in the Agriculture Directorate, the eligibility criteria was B.Sc. (Agriculture or Engineering) B.Sc. with Mathematics or Statistics and for the post of Junior Statistical Assistant/Block Statistical Supervisor, the criteria included mathematics atleast at the metric level. The selection of candidates was to be made on the basis of a competitive examination in which general Hindi and general knowledge were compulsory papers in addition to which a candidate was required to offer some optional papers making his choice from the list of subjects given in the advertisement. The advertisement required the candidates to make application in the prescribed form 'Ka'. 3. The petitioner made application in response to the advertisement in the prescribed form 'Ka' enclosing all the relevant documents/certificates. Before proceeding further, it must be noted that neither the advertisement nor the prescribed form of application required the candidate to specify his choice or preference of post(s) on which he desired to be appointed and the Commission was, therefore, to make its recommendation in favour of a candidate selected in the competitive examination on the basis of his position in the select list and having regard to the eligibility criteria for the different posts under the advertisement. 4. In the competitive examination the petitioner secured an aggregate of 130 marks on the basis of which in the result published by the Commission (Annexure 4) his name was shown among the list of candidates selected for appointment to the posts of Block Statistical Officer (SC). 4. In the competitive examination the petitioner secured an aggregate of 130 marks on the basis of which in the result published by the Commission (Annexure 4) his name was shown among the list of candidates selected for appointment to the posts of Block Statistical Officer (SC). The list of candidates for appointment to the post of Block Statistical Officer (SC) consisted of 24 names in which the name of the petitioner figured at serial no.13. 5. Thereafter the Commission recommended his name for appointment to the aforesaid post and forwarded all his relevant papers and documents to the Government for appointing the petitioner after necessary scrutiny and verification of his papers. On scrutiny of the petitioner's papers in the Planning Department, it was found from his matriculation mark sheet that in that examination he had failed in mathematics and he, therefore, did not fulfil the criteria for appointment to the post of Block Statistical Supervisor. The Department accordingly returned the petitioner's name to the Commission. 6. It appears that the Commission in preparing the select list and recommending the petitioner for appointment to the post of Block Statistical Supervisor had over looked this fact and it was due to inadvertence that the petitioner's name was included for appointment to that post even though he did not have the necessary qualifications. It is important to note here that there were a number of other posts which did not have the restriction of passing in mathematics in the matriculation examination and for which, therefore, the petitioner was fully qualified. It may further be noted that candidates securing lesser mark than the petitioner in the competitive examination were recommended for appointment against those posts. 7. After the petitioner's name was returned to the Commission by the Planning Department, the Commission was expected to rectify the mistake earlier committed by it and to make recommendation of the petitioner's name having regard to the marks secured by him in the competitive examination for appointment to a suitable post for which he possessed the necessary qualifications. Instead of doing that the Commission issued a show cause notice dated 20.12.1995 (Annexure-6) to the petitioner alleging that in his application he had falsely represented to have passed in mathematics at the matriculation level. Instead of doing that the Commission issued a show cause notice dated 20.12.1995 (Annexure-6) to the petitioner alleging that in his application he had falsely represented to have passed in mathematics at the matriculation level. The petitioner submitted his show cause stating that he had not made any false representation in his application and had also submitted his matriculation mark sheet showing him failed in mathematics along with his application. Failing to get any response from the Commission, the petitioner finally came to this court in this writ petition. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it is admitted that having regard to the petitioner's higher position in the merit list his name was recommended for appointment to a post with the highest scale of pay of Rs. 16002780/-. He was, however, found not having the necessary qualification for the post. It is then stated that the petitioner had made incorrect representation that he had passed matriculation examination with mathematics and for this he was issued a show cause notice. According to the Commission the petitioner's reply to the show cause was not received in its office. 9. It appears to me that the stand of the Commission is quite misconceived and it makes an attempt, unworthy of its constitutional position, to needlessly shift the blame upon the petitioner in ORDER :to cover up a mistake committed in its office. As noted above, the application was to be made in the prescribed form 'Ka' and the candidate was not required to indicate any choice of preference for the post on which he wished to be appointed. So far the allegation that the petitioner made any misrepresentation, that is not borne out from the materials on record. A photostat copy of the petitioner's application form was produced by Mr.Tiwary, counsel for the Commission. Column 10 of the application related to the academic qualifications and it was in the following form: Examination passed Board/ Class/ University - Division Year of subjects passing offered in the examination the examination. 10. In the subject column relating to subjects offered in the examination, the petitioner mentioned mathematics also in respect of his matriculation examination. The manner in which the form is printed, he can be hardly blamed for including mathematics much less accused of making a false representation. 10. In the subject column relating to subjects offered in the examination, the petitioner mentioned mathematics also in respect of his matriculation examination. The manner in which the form is printed, he can be hardly blamed for including mathematics much less accused of making a false representation. It is undeniable that mathematics was one of the papers in which the petitioner had appeared in the examination. It is another matter that he had failed in mathematics and had passed matriculation without mathematics but he never gave any indication that he had passed in mathematics in matriculation. In fact, as required he also submitted his matriculation mark sheet along with the application form which clearly showed him fail in mathematics in that examination. It is, therefore, wholly unreasonable to accuse him of having made any misrepresentation. It appears to me that initially it was a simple case of oversight in the Commission's office which has only been compounded by the Commission's insistence not to correct its error and to needlessly issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that this petition must succeed and the petitioner must be allowed the relief claimed by him. The respondent Commission and the State Government are accordingly directed to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the marks secured by him in the selection examination to a post for which he possesses the necessary qualification. The necessary formalities must be completed and an ORDER :of appointment must be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt production of a copy of this ORDER :. The petitioner will receive his salary for the post from the date of his joining. His seniority, however, will be reckoned from the date the candidate next to him in the merit list was appointed. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable by the Commission. The amount of cost would be payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority and a receipt showing payment would be filed in this court's registry within two weeks from today.