Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1124 (PAT)

Nupur Bharti v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-27

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging the communique issued vide memo no. 22 dated 6.6.2006 by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the Commission of 26th Judicial Services Competitive Examination, has been rejected. 3. Precisely, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for judicial service competitive examination to be held by the Commission in a prescribed proforma. Subsequently, the same was rejected by the Commission and a communication to that effect was made to the petitioner on 6th June, 2006 saying that her application was not as per the prescribed proforma as she had not given any sign of identification on her face. Learned counsel further submitted that from the application form filed by the petitioner, it would appear that against the column 15 she has clearly stated "Kuchh nahi kuchh nahi", meaning thereby that she had not given any identification mark on her person as required by column 15 of the application form. It is further submitted that since there was no identification mark or any scar mark on her person, obviously the petitioner said "Kuchh nahi Kuchh nahi" against the column prescribed and for this failure on the part of the petitioner, her candidature has been rejected. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the Commission appears to be wholly arbitrary and discriminatory and without jurisdiction inasmuch as that no candidate can be asked to manufacture any scar mark or identification mark upon his or her person. 4. Dr. S.N. Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, on the contrary, submitted that against the column 15 of the prescribed proforma a candidate was required to give detail about identification marks but since nothing was said in the application form supplied by the petitioner, her application was rejected and the same was communicated to her on 6.6.2006 which is alleged to have been received by the petitioner on 30th June, 2006. It is also submitted that a general communique was published drawing attention of the applicants about the rejection of their candidature. Dr. It is also submitted that a general communique was published drawing attention of the applicants about the rejection of their candidature. Dr. Jha, ultimately submitted that in view of the rules framed by the Commission identification mark was required to be given by a candidate for every examination to be held by the Commission and since these details were not furnished by the petitioner, her candidature was rejected for non-compliance of the rules of the Commission. 5. From the application form filed by the petitioner, which has been brought on record and marked as Annexure 1, it appears that against column 15 she stated "Kuchh nahi Kuchh nahi" which means that she had no any identification mark on her person. The petitioner reiterated the same thing in her application which is Annexure E to the counter affidavit and prayed to consider her again for future examinations to be held. 6. From the tenor of the prayer of the writ petitioner, it appears that she had requested the authorities not to disqualify her again in future for the same reason. This apart, it appears to us that the Commission rejected the application of the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner. Even assuming that rule prescribes to indicate some identification mark in the application form but a candidate cannot be compelled to disclose the identification mark in case he or she possesses none. The writ petitioner, in categorical terms, had stated before the Commission and also in this application that since she had no scar mark or any identification mark on her person, the same was not mentioned in the application form as required by the Commission. The candidature of this petitioner, on this ground alone, in our considered view, could not have been rejected. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been given by the Commission in its counter affidavit. 7. A person is not supposed to manufacture any identification mark before he or she applies for any post advertised by the Commission. Photograph of the petitioner was affixed on the application form which was sufficient for her identification in case there were certain doubts about her candidature. In abundant precaution such a clause is provided in the application form when persons of same face are found or there is some dispute about their candidatures. Photograph of the petitioner was affixed on the application form which was sufficient for her identification in case there were certain doubts about her candidature. In abundant precaution such a clause is provided in the application form when persons of same face are found or there is some dispute about their candidatures. This situation had never arisen before the Commission and in routine manner her application was rejected for not mentioning the identification mark in the application form. The action of the Commission, in that view of the matter, is wholly without jurisdiction. 8. We are informed that the result has not been published so far 26th Judicial Services Competitive Examination is concerned. 9. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Commission should arrange special examination for this petitioner before publication of the result and in case she is found to be successful, her name should be included in the final result to be published. 10. This court accordingly directs the Commission to arrange special examination for the petitioner. 11. This order, however, shall not be a precedence in future as it is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 12. With the aforementioned observation/direction, this application is disposed of.