Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 173 (PAT)

Jitendra Rai v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-11

NAVIN SINHA, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2004
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The appellant, Jitendra Rai, was the petitioner in CWJC No. 10897 of 1996 : Jitendra Rai vs. The State of Bihar & others. In pursuance of advertisement No. 11 of 1985 inviting applications for the post of Secretariat Assistant he had also applied. The selection initially was to be done by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board. But, this organization was rendered defunct in 1992 and, thus, the recruitment of Secretariat Assistants was assigned to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioner-appellant had been shown as a successful candidate when the list appeared announcing the results. The official publication is appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 2. An issue was raised that the appellant had not applied as a reserved candidate and in the circumstances could not be considered as a reserved candidate but amongst the general candidates. From the record it appears that Bihar Public Service Commission misplaced the original form so there was a controversy as to which category the petitioner-appellant, had claimed while applying. The entire issues rest on this. When the L.P.A. had been filed an order of the Court dated 12.11.1997 mentioned that at the time of final hearing the entire documents for selection would be made available. Unfortunately no one has appeared on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission. 3. However, the Court need not detain itself to see the document as a Court of record which the High Court is. A copy of the application form should have been filed when the Bihar Public Service Commission answered the writ petition by its counter affidavit. The counter affidavit does not lend any confidence as a Section Officer was sent to put up the case on behalf of the Commission. This is bad. The court cannot go into the issue that the form had been misplaced. The onus to show the original or copy is on the Commission not the petitioner-appellant. One thing is clear that if any thing was misplaced it was in the custody of the Bihar Public Service Commission. 4. In so far as the record is concerned, the publication of the result, an official document, clearly shows that the petitioner amongst the successful candidates was referred to against SI. No. 11, under the head the "Arakshan quota". The petitioner-appellants category has been given as 06. 4. In so far as the record is concerned, the publication of the result, an official document, clearly shows that the petitioner amongst the successful candidates was referred to against SI. No. 11, under the head the "Arakshan quota". The petitioner-appellants category has been given as 06. In the circumstances under the rule of estoppel the Bihar Public Service Commission or any other State respondents are stopped from pleading to the contrary. The public notification of the result rests on documents in the possession of the Commission and it is not its case that it had made an error in publishing the results. Further, though not the main issue, the petitioner-appellant contends that he had given his date of birth as 2.6.1960 and this is evidenced by Annexure 1. The reply to the paragraph where Annexure 1 has been referred to in the petition is evasive if not mischievous. The reply is in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit. The incumbent, a Section Officer states "it is reiterated that the petitioner has neither applied for 06 category nor submitted any income certificate along with the application form". The Bihar Public Service Commission has not placed the original before the High Court nor a copy in its pleading and has evaded the answer as to the date of birth as given by the petitioner-appellant. Reply to the petitioners pleading in paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the writ petition has been conveniently avoided in the counter affidavit. Thus, the issue of the petitioner-appellant having reapplied the story does not hold good. In the counter affidavit, the deponent alleges that the petitioner has materially suppressed the facts. It is other way round as the person who has sworn the affidavit one D.N. Mandal, a Section Officer with the Bihar Public Service Commission, has, in fact, suppressed the truth, The counter affidavit mentions nothing that the result declares the petitioner a successful candidate under category 06. 5. The publication of the result is an official document. It shows the petitionerappellant having succeeded as a reserved candidate. The counter affidavit is worthless. 6. In the result the appeal succeeds. The judgment on the writ petition dated 10th September, 1997 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. The publication of the result is an official document. It shows the petitionerappellant having succeeded as a reserved candidate. The counter affidavit is worthless. 6. In the result the appeal succeeds. The judgment on the writ petition dated 10th September, 1997 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner-appellants result as was published as being successful against category 06 and his date of birth as referred to not having been denied in the counter affidavit will be taken as uncontroverted by record and correct. The petitioner will be entitled to his appointment as a Secretariat Assistant. 7. For having filed an incorrect, irresponsible counter affidavit and not appearing before the Court the Bihar Public Service Commission shall pay costs of Rs.500/- which shall be deposited with the Registrar General, High Court within three weeks from today. Thereafter this amount will be transmitted to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. 8. The appeal is allowed with cost throughout in addition.