Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1592 (PAT)

Shri Anoj Kumar Barnwal v. State Of Bihar

2008-11-10

KISHORE K.MANDAL, R.M.LODHA

body2008
Judgment 1. We heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. The judgment dated 12th September, 2008 passed by the Single Judge is impugned in this appeal. 3. At the outset, we may observe that in L.P.A. No. 833 of 2008, the impugned judgment was challenged by some of the affected parties, namely, (1) Md. Farooquezzaman, (2) Narendra Singh, and (3) Shailesh Kumar Srivastava. 4. We dismissed the appeal by our order dated 24th October, 2008 by observing thus: "3. In so far as the present case is concerned, the entire selection process has been found to be farcical by the Single Judge. The whole exercise suffers from organized conspiracy and systematic fraud. The Chairman (present as well as past), three Members and six officials and the staff of the Bihar Public Service Commission were arrested and have been charge-sheeted alongwith ninety seven selectees. The fraud and mischief played by these people is all pervasive which has affected the entire selection process. 4. In the backdrop of these facts and the situation where the entire selection process is found to be farcical and result of organized conspiracy, and systematic fraud, it is neither possible and nor feasible to separate the beneficiaries against whom there may not be any direct evidence of involvement. Even if few selectees (like the petitioners) are assumed to be not tainted, no benefit can be given to them since the factual situation leads to the only conclusion that the entire selection process was founded on mischief, fraud, extraneous consideration and criminal acts. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH P.U., PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER does not apply to the fact situation of the present case. Incidentally, we may note that the counsel for the appellants did not put in issue the legality and correctness of the diverse findings recorded by the Single Judge that the selection process was farcical and the result of systematic fraud." 5. As a matter of fact, the appellants in that appeal were the selectees, who were not found to have indulged in fraud nor were charge-sheeted by the Vigilance Department. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants have been charge- sheeted and a criminal case is pending against them. The counsel would, however, submit that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that the charge- sheeted employees shall not be entitled to consideration and appointment. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants have been charge- sheeted and a criminal case is pending against them. The counsel would, however, submit that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that the charge- sheeted employees shall not be entitled to consideration and appointment. In our view, in a situation like this, where the appellants are facing the criminal case for being privy to cheating and large scale fraud in the process of competitive examination, until they are acquitted honorably, they would not be entitled for consideration for appointment. 6. It is pertinent to notice here that out of 184 selectees, 97 selectees have been charge-sheeted under diverse provisions of Indian Penal Code. That shows enormity of fraud and cheating having taken place in the selection process. The cancellation of selection process in its entirety, thus, cannot be faulted. 7. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine.