Judgment BARIN GHOSH AND NAVANITI PD. SINGH., J. 1. Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board published Advertisement. No. 1/1990 on 11th February, 1990 inviting applications for different types of Class III post meant for the graduation standard. The advrtisement indicated that the number of posts in different categories in different Departments sha|| be declared later. On 28th February, 1992, Bihar State Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board was dissolved and its left over works were transferred to Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as BPSC) 2. It does not appear, at least it has not been brought to our notice by the counsel appearing before us that in this State the State Legislature has made enactments regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of a|| persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection with the affairs of this State. it appears that rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to many public services and posts in connection with the affairs of this State have been made by the Governor of this State in exercise of his power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Some of these rules regulating the recruitment to such services stipulate that in order to hold a particular post in such services, the incumbent must have, in addition to be a graduate, a particular subject or subects either at the Matriculation level or at the Intermediate have or at the Graduation level. In such view of the matter, while examination is conducted for selecting persons to be recommended for appointments, which may be made in such services also, the selection authority insists upon the candidates to indicate whether they have or have not any such additional qualification. On 16th September, 1992, the Governor of the State, in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India took away the requirement of having such additional qualification. By reason of doing away such requirement, the rules regulating recruitment stood altered and the restrictions imposed therein for recruitment stood altered. 3. After the responsibility pertaining to selection pursuant to the said advertisement was transferred to BPSC, it held on 28th May, 1995 Preliminary Test of the candidates, who had responded to the said advertisement. By reason of doing away such requirement, the rules regulating recruitment stood altered and the restrictions imposed therein for recruitment stood altered. 3. After the responsibility pertaining to selection pursuant to the said advertisement was transferred to BPSC, it held on 28th May, 1995 Preliminary Test of the candidates, who had responded to the said advertisement. The result of the Preliminary Test was published on 10th August, 1995 and the successful candidates were called upon by BPSC to appear to the Main Examination, which was held on 9th December, 1995. While issuing the forms for the Main Examination. BPSC indicated in the part of the form, to the treated as Admit Card, to furnish the particulars of the subjects the candidates had in order to ascertain their competence to be appointed in special posts having requirement of special subjects in terms of the recruitment rules which by that time by the said decision of the Government dated 16th September, 1992 had been withdrawn. 4. In 1995 some of the candidates, who appeared at the said examination filed a Writ Petition registered as CWJC No. 10393 of 1995 contending that the requirement of furnishing particulars of special qualification was unjustified. This Writ Petition was dealt with by a Hon ble Single Judge, who, however, had no occasion to consider the decision of the Government dated 16th September, 1992. The Hon ble Judge while disposing of the matter found that it is the stand of BPSC that a merit list will be prepared and, from that merit list, persons could be recommended in seriatim and, if the person to be recommended on such basis to a special post cannot be recommended for he does not have the required qualification, he would be recommended to yet another post where there is no requirement of special qualification. It was not suggested before the Court by BPSC, nor the Court directed BPSC to ensure enlistment of candidates in the list having special qualifications so that all special posts can be filled in by making recommendations from the list. 5. On 16th December, 1996, the result of the Main Examination for 13 types of posts was published. Thereupon, on 14th January, 1997, BPSC purported to withdraw the list published on 16th December, 1996 and to substitute the same by yet another list. 5. On 16th December, 1996, the result of the Main Examination for 13 types of posts was published. Thereupon, on 14th January, 1997, BPSC purported to withdraw the list published on 16th December, 1996 and to substitute the same by yet another list. Although many people who had been listed in the first list found them listed in the second list, but may of them, who had been listed in the first list, did not find them in the second list, and at the same time, many who had not been listed in the first list found them listed in the second list. 6. A few of the persons, who were listed in the first list but were listed in the first list but were not listed in the second list approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which has been dealt with by the judgment and order under appeal. In the Writ Petition, apart from contending that such exercise is tainted with mala fide and, in particular, mala fide of the Chairman of the Commission, it was contended that BPSC had no authority in law to change the list. The legal proposition that BPSC cannot change a merit list was accepted by BPSC before the learned Judge who dealt with the matter and, as has been recorded in the judgment. BPSC, however, contended that it is competent to rectify mistakes and errors in the list, and exactly that had happened in the instant case. It was contended by BPSC that after the examination was over and before the result was published, requisitions came and while considering the same it transpired that the people, who ought to be recommended against some of such requisitions, had not been listed and, accordingly, that prompted making of the second list. In other words, BPSC held out to Court that after having had prepared the list strictly on merit, it transpired that despite people being in the merit list may not be recommended because they do not have special qualifications for being recommended in respect of some of the posts and, accordingly, in order to fill up those posts, some of those meritorious persons were delisted and people who did not have merit to come in the merit list, but had those special subjects or qualification were brought in the list. This is not permissible in law and that is exactly what has been held by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition and striking down the second list. As selector, it was the obligation of BPSC to find merit. It had no obligation to ensure supplying of all vacancies, though the primary object of the selection was to supply vacancies. Once it had set a standard, it was required to ensure that it recommends persons who achieved such standard. For the prupose of making recommendations it could not lower down the standard already fixed by it and on top of that, obliter those who have better standard. 7. Furthermore, in the instant case, having regard to the decision of the Government taken on 16th September, 1992, there was no requirement of having special qualification for being recommended to any special post. Everybody was entitled to be recommended to every post. The candidate to be recommended was required to have merit in order to be recommended. 8. It appears to us that after having had published the first list on the basis of merit, as it has promised before this Court in CWJC No. 10393/1995, BPSC purported to change the norms of listing candidates in the select list, which too, is not permissible. 9. We, therefore, find no reasons to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal in LPA No. 1081 of 1997. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 10. In the connected Writ Petition, being CWJC No. 308/1997, the petitioners are contending that the very selection is vitiated by reason of various irregularities. Although bald allegations have been made pertaining to various alleged irregularities, but no particulars thereof have been furnished. It has been contended that the very selection process itself is bad. It is now well settled in law that a person having had participated in the selection process and after having had taken a chance in such selection process cannot turn around and contend that the very selection process was bad. This, however, would not prevent such a person to contend that the evaluation of the merit was not proper. Such allegations too have been made in the instant writ petition. This, however, would not prevent such a person to contend that the evaluation of the merit was not proper. Such allegations too have been made in the instant writ petition. It has been contended that the papers submitted by the candidates had been altered and accordingly the answers given by a better candidate has been shown as the answer given by an inferior candidate. 11. The allegation as made is very interesting, but without any particulars and, accordingly, there is no scope of making an enquiry. We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.