Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 195 (PAT)

Ram Pratap v. State Of Bihar

2001-03-01

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. The purpose of the writ petition is to challenge the final results of the 25th Bihar Judicial Sen/ice Examination and the process of the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. 2. At the out set the Court may place on record that it is not about to interfere with the selection processed by the Bihar Public Service Commission. 3. The petitioner appiied in pursuance of the advertisement which had been issued, a public advertisement, on 18 March, 1999. The advertisement was numbered as 18 of 1999. The petitioner was aware of the public announcement in re. the 25th Bihar Judicial Service Examination. He had applied as a general candidate. The petitioner was issued an admit card. He succeeded in the written examination. The petitioner was not called for an interview. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered against the reserved category. In the present case, for the candidates in the category "Scheduled Caste" the reservation is 100 per cent available to candidates from Bihar. 4. The reason why the State of Bihar made the reservation, is available in a communication addressed from the Government of Bihar to the Bihar Public Service Commission. This communication is numbered as 1038/91 Ka.-70 dated 11 June, 2000, Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh apparently had made reservations available to candidates within their States. Bihar only followed the pattern of other two States in making reservation in this particular category to candidates from the State of Bihar. 5. The final results of the examination that is to say the 25th Bihar Judicial Service Examination was published on 30 June, 2000 in so far as the written test is concerned. The petitioners name is not to be found in the results (written) published on 30 June, 2000. The final results of the successful candidates were published on 6 August, 2000. Logically, the petitioners name was not within this list either as his name was not in the list of successful candidates who had passed the written examination. 6. It is not that the petitioner is ignoramus as to why the State of Bihar had made reservation in reference to Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner is a Public Prosecutor and in the petition he seems to be aware of the policy decision which was taken by the State of Bihar on 11 June, 1996. 6. It is not that the petitioner is ignoramus as to why the State of Bihar had made reservation in reference to Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner is a Public Prosecutor and in the petition he seems to be aware of the policy decision which was taken by the State of Bihar on 11 June, 1996. The petitioner applied to take the examination in context. Finding that he was not successful now the petitioner challenges the entire process of the examination on the ground that he ought to be considered also as a reserved candidate. 7. Nothing has surprised the petitioner. He entered the examination as had been announced. No rules have been changed since the petitioner applied, took the examination and saw the result of the tests. 8. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to issue a writ on this petition as it would only complicate the situation. The petitioner could have approached this High Court earlier before applying when the first advertisement was issued inviting candidates to make applications. 9. Dismissed.