JUDGEMENT S.K.KATRIAR, J. 1. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) has preferred this batch of six appeals against a common judgment dated 30.1.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he has allowed the six writ petitions, has set aside the Preliminary Test (hereinafter referred to as P.T.) of the combined competitive examination for the 48th to 52nd batches for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter, and has directed the Commission to hold fresh P.T. the six writ petitions raised common issues of facts and law, were disposed of by a common judgment, and the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The basic facts shall be drawn from CWJC No. 11858 of 2008 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others) as well as LPA No. 179 of 2009, unless needed by specific reference to a particular writ petition or appeal. 2. The Commission issued advertisement no. 4 of 2007, which was published in the local dailies on 6.11.2007, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the P.T. of the combined competitive examination for 48th to 52nd batches. The entire selection process comprises of three phases. The first one comprises of the PT, the second one of written test, and the final phase of viva-voce test. The answer sheets of the PT in the Optical Marker Reader (OMR, in brief), was programmed to be deciphered by a computer software in an objective-type answer sheet. The Commission received a total number of 2,63,265 applications. Admit cards were issued to all the candidates, but 1,76,984 candidates appeared in the PT, at 530 centres, in 34 districts, spread all over the State of Bihar, and was held on 25.5.2008. 3. Before we proceed further, we would like to indicate the format of the PT. The candidates were required to answer all the 150 questions with multiple choice of answers. It was of objective type. The candidates were supplied the Question Booklets covering 40 pages, and the answer sheet of one sheet both sides of which were used. Question Booklets were marked A, B, C and D series. The four series were expected to incorporate just the same 150 questions, with the same multiple choice of answers. It was of objective type. The candidates were supplied the Question Booklets covering 40 pages, and the answer sheet of one sheet both sides of which were used. Question Booklets were marked A, B, C and D series. The four series were expected to incorporate just the same 150 questions, with the same multiple choice of answers. The difference in the four series was that arrangement, i.e. serial number, of the questions were different in the four series to avoid copying in the halls. One candidate got one series which he could carry back home. Each candidate was also given one answer sheet both sides of which had to be used as per the instructions, the first page of which contained columns to be filled in the own handwriting of the candidate. The reverse page, namely, page no. 2 provided the spaces for the candidates to indicate their preference of suggested answers in the Question Booklets. Only black/ blue ink ball point pen could be used. There were different computer programming to decipher every answer sheet as per the series of the Question Booklet given to each candidate. As many as twelve important instructions were printed on the Question Booklets to be read and followed by the candidates. 4. The writ proceedings were confined to two kinds of objections, some of the questions were incorrect or the suggested answers were incorrect and, secondly, the Question Booklets supplied to some candidates were defective in various ways. In so far as the first kind of objections are concerned, as per its set norms and established procedure, the Commission constituted an expert committee to evaluate the key answers given by question setters. The Committee which dealt with the first aspect of the matter comprised of the following members:- (i) Dr. B.K. Jha, Former Head of the Department of Political Science, Magadh University (ii) Prof. Dr. Surendra Gopal, Former Head of the Department, History, Patna University (iii) Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Director, Khudabaksh Library, Patna, (iv) Dr. Bhagwan Prasad Singh, Professor, Economics Department, Patna University (v) Dr. Randhir Singh, Head of Department, Public Administration, A.N. College, Patna (vi) Dr. N.P. Sinha, Retd. Head of Department, Geography Department, Patna University, Patna (vii) Prof. Ram Vijay Singh, Retd. Professor, Mathematics Department, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (viii) Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Professor & Head of Department, Statistics Department, Patna University, Patna (ix) Dr. Randhir Singh, Head of Department, Public Administration, A.N. College, Patna (vi) Dr. N.P. Sinha, Retd. Head of Department, Geography Department, Patna University, Patna (vii) Prof. Ram Vijay Singh, Retd. Professor, Mathematics Department, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (viii) Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Professor & Head of Department, Statistics Department, Patna University, Patna (ix) Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Professor & Head of Department, Botany Department, Patna University, Patna (x) Padmashree Dr. Vijay Prakash Singh, Professor & Head of Department of Medicine, Patna Medical College, Patna (xi) Dr. N. Laxmi Nath, Vice-Chancellor, Chanakya National Law University, Patna (xii) Dr. L.M. Rai, Retd. Professor & Head of Department, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya The Committees report was submitted on 7th July, 2008, before publication of the PT results, and is on record (Annexure-5 to the Commissions Supplementary Affidavit in LPA No. 178 of 2009). The Committee was of the view that some of the answers printed in the Question Booklets were incorrect and, therefore, recommended deletion of a few questions. The report was placed before the Commission on 31.7.2008 and 7.8.2008, and the Commission decided to delete 14 questions from the reckoning, and evaluated the answer sheets with respect to the remaining 136 questions leading to the PT results published on 19.9.2008. This was before publication of the PT result. 5 In so far as the second kind of objections are concerned, before publication of the PT results, the Commission constituted another Committee on 14.8.2008, comprising of the following five members to examine the grievances of 94 candidates who had submitted their representations/ complaints alleging duplication of questions, and misbinding or mis-structuring of the Question Booklets:- (i) Prof. K.P. Sinha, Ex.Vice-Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (ii) Dr. V. Mukunda Das, Director, Chandragupta Institute of Management Patna (iii) Dr. L.N. Ram, Ex Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna (iv) Dr. Surendra Gopal, Retd. Professor, Deptt. of History, Patna University, Patna (v) Dr. Chakradhar Narain Sinha, Retd. Professor, N.I.T., Patna The Committee submitted its report on 19.8.2009. Copies of the report are found at different places of the proceedings. It is marked. Annexure-D to the Commissions counter affidavit. The Committee had examined 94 applications regarding defective Booklets, and did not find any substance in their objections. The Commission accepted the report in its entirety. Professor, N.I.T., Patna The Committee submitted its report on 19.8.2009. Copies of the report are found at different places of the proceedings. It is marked. Annexure-D to the Commissions counter affidavit. The Committee had examined 94 applications regarding defective Booklets, and did not find any substance in their objections. The Commission accepted the report in its entirety. 6 On 19.9.2008 the result of the PT was published 19,318 candidates were declared to have passed the PT and were sent up for final examination. It is relevant to state in view of Clause 6 incorporated in the result of the PT (reproduced in Paragraph-28 below), the aggrieved candidates were called upon to submit their objections/ representations with respect to the selection process, and/or conduct of the PT, and the result. 7. The Commission received altogether 5713 representations till 17.10.2008, over and above 94 objections discussed hereinabove. Paragraph-20 of the Commissions supplementary counter affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:- "20. That it is submitted that in all 5713 candidates filed representations by 17.10.2008. The representations mainly relate to the following:- (a) Re-totaling/Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets (b) Wrong answers (c) Mistake about the category (reservation) (d) Claim to obtain marks equal to cut-off marks or more (e) The roll no. and marks of the candidate not available on website." We are not concerned with all the objections. 8 The selection process generated lot of grievances amongst the candidates leading to six writ petitions. The same are as follows:- (a) CWJC No. 11858 of 2008 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), giving rise to present LPA No. 178 of 2009 (b) CWJC No. 16015 of 2008 (Rajkishore & Ors. Vs. BPSC & Ors.), giving rise to LPA No. 182 of 2009 (c) CWJC No. 16056 of 2008 (Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. BPSC), giving rise to LPA No. 180 of 2009 (d) CWJC No. 15479 of 2008 (Mrityunjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. BPSC), giving rise to LPA No. 179 of 2009 (e) CWJC No. 16993 of 2008 (Vagish Chandra Jha & Ors. Vs. BPSC) giving rise to LPA No. 184 of 2009 (f) CWJC No. 16462 of 2008 (Vikas Kumar & Another Vs. BPSC), giving rise to LPA No. 181 of 2009 All the 37 writ petitioners are unsuccessful candidates. Out of these 37 writ petitioners, 6 of them allege supply of defective Question Booklets which were misbound and were not replaced. Vs. BPSC) giving rise to LPA No. 184 of 2009 (f) CWJC No. 16462 of 2008 (Vikas Kumar & Another Vs. BPSC), giving rise to LPA No. 181 of 2009 All the 37 writ petitioners are unsuccessful candidates. Out of these 37 writ petitioners, 6 of them allege supply of defective Question Booklets which were misbound and were not replaced. The contest before the learned Single Judge was between the unsuccessful candidates and the Commission. After consideration of the matter, the six writ petitions have been allowed by a common judgment dated 30.1.2009, whereby the PT has been set aside on the ground that some of the booklets contained more than 150 questions. The questions were not printed in the same sequence in all the Question Booklets of one series. Some of the questions were repetitive, or incorrectly formulated, or the suggested answers of some of them were incorrect. In the estimation of the learned Single Judge, the defects are so all-pervasive that it would be unsafe to depend on the PT. It has, therefore, been further directed to hold fresh PT. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Commission has preferred the aforesaid six appeals. 9. Learned Advocate General has appeared in support of the appeals and submits that as many as "12 important instructions" were printed on page 1 of the Question Booklet, and the more important ones were highlighted in bold print. He further submits that the materials on record clearly state that a large number of candidates had taken aid of the instructions, and had the defective Question Booklets replaced. Those who failed to take advantage of the situation in the examination hall will have to blame themselves. He submits that there is a duty on the Commission to hold a fair selection process, but there is an equally corresponding duty on the candidates to appear at the examination as per the instructions and the code of discipline formulated by the Commission for uniform application. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar [ (1992)2 SCC 206 , Para 3], He submits in the same vein that condition no. 4 of the question booklet clearly provided for replacement of the defective Question Booklet. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar [ (1992)2 SCC 206 , Para 3], He submits in the same vein that condition no. 4 of the question booklet clearly provided for replacement of the defective Question Booklet. Apart from those who asked for replacement and got the same in the examination hall, 94 of the candidates represented before the Commission which have been examined by the five member Committee from amongst whom only six have approached this Court with the grievance. Learned Advocate General further submits that no mala fides have been attributed to the Commission. On the contrary, its fairness in identifying the defects in the selection process and the further effort to rectify the same is writ large on the proceedings. Even before publication of the result, the Commission constituted two Committees and remedial measures as suggested were taken. After publication of the result, the Commission invited representations/ objections from aggrieved candidates. The matter was examined in depth and remedial measures were taken. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadanand Halo Vs. Momtaj Ali Sheikh [ (2008)4 SCC 619 ]. 9.1. He also submits, that enormity of holding such a test conducted by human agencies may bring about some grievances. In view of the bona fide attempts on the part of the Commission to rectify the defects in the selection process, hardly any grievance survives except those of the unsuccessful candidates who were unable to measure up to the minimum requirements of PT. 9.2. He next submits that a large number of vacancies exist in the State of Bihar. According to the Rules, the selection process has to take place once every year after taking into account the anticipated vacancies till December of the year following, which, for historical reasons, could not take place as a result of which the State Government amended the Rules enabling it to conduct the selection process for more than one batch at a time. The net result is that examinations of the 48th to 52nd batches are being held together. In other words, no examination has taken place since 2001. The PT has taken more than the needed time as a result of which the examination for the 53rd to 55th batches are now due. The net result is that examinations of the 48th to 52nd batches are being held together. In other words, no examination has taken place since 2001. The PT has taken more than the needed time as a result of which the examination for the 53rd to 55th batches are now due. He, therefore, submits that in the larger interest of the State, minor defects, if any, may be ignored. 10. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has, in his elaborate submissions, pointed out a large number of defects in the conduct of the PT. The selection process is afflicted by as many as 30 defects. He has pointed out that a large number of questions were wrongly formulated, and many of the suggested answers were also wholly incorrect. He next submits that out of the 14 questions which have been deleted from consid- eration, seven were erroneously deleted. He next submits that a number of questions were repeated as a result of which many of them got more than 150 questions to be answered. He also pointed out that there was variation in the English version and the Hindi version in the same series. He next submits that the instructions clearly stated that a wrong Question Booklet had to be replaced by another Booklet of the same series which was not followed. In other words, for example, the candidates who were given A or C series were replaced by Booklet B series, as a result of which the computer format evaluated the answer sheets erroneously. He also submits that the instructions were very onerous and unreasonable, incapable of being followed within the time fixed for the examination. Matching/extra time was not allowed to the candidates whose Question Booklets were replaced. The two enquiry reports were eyewash, were as per the dictates of the Commission, to save its own skin. The reports are so superficial that the same do not inspire confidence. He submits in the same vein that the reasons assigned by the two Committees are contrary to the materials, on record. The Commission has not come with clean hands. He relies in the following reported judgments: (i) (2007)8 SCC 449 (Para 33) (Prestige Light Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India) (ii) (2007)10 SCC 635 (Rajkumar Soni Vs. He submits in the same vein that the reasons assigned by the two Committees are contrary to the materials, on record. The Commission has not come with clean hands. He relies in the following reported judgments: (i) (2007)8 SCC 449 (Para 33) (Prestige Light Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India) (ii) (2007)10 SCC 635 (Rajkumar Soni Vs. State of U.P) He wrapped up his elaborate submissions by submitting that, in the interest of justice to the entire body of candidates, the PT as a whole should be scrapped. He relies on the following reported judgments:- (i) 2002(3) SCC 146 (para 8) (Union of India Vs. Chakradhar) (ii) 2008(1) PLJR 357 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court (reported in 2008(2) PLJR 310 ). 11 Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, appearing for the writ petitioner of CWJC No. 16015 of 2008 (LPA No. 182 of 2009), submitted that the amended Rules permitting examination of five batches at a time is illegal. He next submits that it is a case of wide-spread malaise and, therefore, the PT as a whole has to be set aside. Any relief short of that will do injustice to a large number of candidates. He lastly submits that powers of this Court to do justice is unlimited. In a case like the present one, the relief should not be confined to the writ petitioners alone, and should be extended to each and every sufferer. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India [1985 PLJR (SC) 36 (page 39)]. 12. Mr. Mahesh Narain Parbat for the writ petitioner of CWJC No. 16056 of 2008 (LPA No. 180 of 2009), submits that the petitioners were not supplied the replacement Question Booklets in spite of persistent requests. He submitted his complaint/ representation dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure- 5). He has also expressed lack of confidence in the two Committees. The booklets of many of the candidates had more than 150 questions. He has also relied on the Commissions instructions to the Centre Superintendents which did not contain instructions to supply replacement Question Booklets in appropriate cases. 13. The remaining writ petitioners in the other three appeals adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 11858 of 2008. 14. He has also relied on the Commissions instructions to the Centre Superintendents which did not contain instructions to supply replacement Question Booklets in appropriate cases. 13. The remaining writ petitioners in the other three appeals adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 11858 of 2008. 14. Learned Advocate General as well as the Additional Advocate General-III in their separate sets of submissions in reply attempted to counter the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 15. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We shall first deal with question relating to the grievance in respect of the defective questions and answers suggested in the Question Booklet. As stated hereinabove, the PT was held on 25.5.2008, the Commission soon thereafter as per its norms and on its motion, constituted a Committee of twelve distinguished academicians of the State to evaluate the key answers given by question setters. The Committee in its report dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure-5 in LPA No. 178 of 2009), suggested that 14 out of 150 questions were either wrongly formulated or the suggested answers were erroneous. The Commission considered the report and deleted 14 questions from the reckoning, as a result of which each and every candidate was evaluated for the remaining 136 questions. This takes care of the grievance raised on behalf of the writ petitioners that the Question Booklets contained defective questions and defective answers. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken us through the Question Booklet in detail to point out the anomalies. For example, question no.1 of Booklete-A series reads as follows:- "1. What is the sequence number of Ms. Pratibha Patil as President of the Republic of India? (A) 10th (B) 11th (C) 12th (D) 13th" The writ petitioner has produced before us a document issued by the Election Commission of India to show that Smt. Pratibha Patil is the 13th President of India. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has produced before us a copy of the document released by the Rashtrapati Bhawan showing that she is the 12th President of India. In this connection, instruction no. 9 printed on the Question Booklet may be reproduced hereinbelow:- "9. Questions and their responses are printed in English and Hindi versions in this booklet. Each question comprises four responses-(A), (B), (C) and (D). In this connection, instruction no. 9 printed on the Question Booklet may be reproduced hereinbelow:- "9. Questions and their responses are printed in English and Hindi versions in this booklet. Each question comprises four responses-(A), (B), (C) and (D). You are to select ONLY ONE correct response and mark in your Answer Sheet. In case you feel that there are more than one correct answer. Mark the response which you consider the best. In any case choose ONLY ONE response for each question. Your total marks will depend on the number of correct responses marked by you in the Answer sheet." (Emphasis added) The instructions itself stated that "...in case you feel that there are more than one correct answer, mark the response which you consider the best..." In such a situation, evaluation of the answer to this question will entirely depend on the correct answer determined by the Chief Examiner, whether she is the 12th or the 13th President of the Republic of India. Both the documents supplied by learned counsel for the parties indicate the correct position, but from different angles. Both are equally correct answers and therefore, this instruction takes care of the situation. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, had occupied the office for two consecutive terms. From this angle, she is the 12th President of India, and in that situation the communique of the Rashtrapati Bhawan is correct. However, the other document supplied by the Election Commission of India, which is charged with the duty of conducting the election of the President of India, is equally correct, but from a different angle. The Election Commission conducted the thirteenth election. This is apart from the position that a Committee of twelve distinguished academicians examined the entire Question Booklets and have deleted 14 incorrect questions. Questions in such objective type tests are intelligently formulated, and the answer has to be selected in relation to the preciosity of language used in formulating the question. 16.1. Question No. 70 of Booklet No. A-series reads as follows- "70. The serial number of Mr. Mohammad Ansari as Vice-President of India is (A) 10th (B) 11th (C) 12th (D) 13th" The explanation is comparable to the previous one. 16.2. Question no. 149 of the Booklet No. A-series reads as follows:- "149. 16.1. Question No. 70 of Booklet No. A-series reads as follows- "70. The serial number of Mr. Mohammad Ansari as Vice-President of India is (A) 10th (B) 11th (C) 12th (D) 13th" The explanation is comparable to the previous one. 16.2. Question no. 149 of the Booklet No. A-series reads as follows:- "149. Which one of the following is correct about the permanent settlement introduced in Bihar- (A) The Zamindars were deprived of the ownership of the land. (B) The right of ownership of land was made hereditary and transferable for the Zamindars. (C) Land revenue was constitutionalised. (D) Abolition of Zamindari" The definition of permanent settlement as found in the Historical Dictionary of India by Surjit Mansing, is as follows:- Permanent Settlement.-A term applied to the form of revenue settlement introduced by the British Governor General Lord Cornwallis (q.v.) in 1793 to areas controlled by the East India Company (q.v.) in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa (qq.v.). One objective of the new settlement was to end the rapacious system of annual reassessments and contracts to tax collectors introduced when the East India Company took over the rights of dewani in 1765. Another declared objective of Lord Cornwallis was to create in Bengal a body of hereditary landlords who might extend cultivation, maximize production, and generally function with a sense of public purpose espoused by the eighteenth-century enlightened aristocracy in England. The distinguishing feature of the Permanent Settlement, therefore, was that tax collecting, agents were confirmed in their positions for perpetuity in return for a fixed annual payment of dues to the Government. They were forbidden to evict tenants or dispossess the actual cultivators of the soil. The consequences of the Permanent Settlement were not as salutary as Cornwallis intent. While taxes or dues to the Government remained constant, actual rents rose, increasing the burden on the cultivator without adding to the revenues of the Government. "Moreover, revenue collection was harsh, unmitigated even in bad seasons. Third, members of the new class of zamindar did not fit the ideal portrait painted by Cornwallis, who failed to understand the Indian reality. It is noteworthy that no other presidency in British India emulated this system in the various revenue settlements they made and that the Bengal Rent Act of 1859 modified the 1793 law by giving occupancy rights to tenants of twelve years standing. It is noteworthy that no other presidency in British India emulated this system in the various revenue settlements they made and that the Bengal Rent Act of 1859 modified the 1793 law by giving occupancy rights to tenants of twelve years standing. Many twentieth-century historians and economists of all nationalities regard the Permanent Settlement as an important factor contributing not only to the social tensions of eastern India in the nineteenth century, but to its continuing social backwardness and agricultural impoverishment." (Emphasis added) Answer No. B was obviously the best answer. 16.3. Question No. 53 of Question Booklet No. A-series reads as follows:- "53. Which of the following instrument measures blood pressure (A) Sphero meter (B) Animo meter (C) Spigomoho meter (D) Am meter" We have not the slightest manner of doubt that the question is accurately formulated. The correct answer is at no. (C), which reads "Spigomoho meter", though with incorrect spelling. The Oxford Concise Medi- cal Dictionary gives the correct spelling of the instrument as "Sphygmomanometer". We are of the view that incorrect spelling of a suggested answer, which was quite close to the correct answer, cannot qualify for outright rejection. 16.4. To conclude this aspect of the matter, the defective questions suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners are taken care of by instruction no. 9, and have also been taken care of by the report of the twelve-member Committee which was accepted by the Commission with certain modifications and 14 questions were deleted. Everybody was earlier required to answer the same 150 questions, and after deletion the same 136 questions. Therefore, none gained any advantage, nor anybody suffered any prejudice, in a situation where the candidates had no choice of selection between different questions. 17. We must also consider the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that 7 questions were erroneously deleted. We find it difficult to sit in judgment over the report of the twelve- member Committee comprising of five distinguished academicians of the State. In any case, we have also made an attempt to assess the questions with allegedly defective answers brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioners, and have been considered hereinabove. This is apart from the fairness shown by the Commission by making serious efforts to remove the defects. 18. In any case, we have also made an attempt to assess the questions with allegedly defective answers brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioners, and have been considered hereinabove. This is apart from the fairness shown by the Commission by making serious efforts to remove the defects. 18. We now pass on to another serious grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, some of the Booklets contained more than 150 questions, or questions, or the pages were repetitive etc. We call attention to instruction no. 4 of the Question Booklet series A which reads as follows:- "4. Immediately after commencement of the examination, you should check up your Question Booklet and ensure that the Question Booklet series is printed on the top right-hand corner of the booklet. The booklet contains 40 printed pages and no page or question is missing or unprinted or torn or repeated. If you find any defect in this booklet, get it replaced immediately bv a complete booklet of the same series." (Emphasis added) In other words, the instruction clearly stated that the Question Booklet contained only 40 pages, which could have been checked very quickly. Failure to do so cannot go to the debit of the Commission. Secondly, the reports of all the Centre Superintendents are on record. It is evident on a plain reading of the same that some of the Question Booklets suffered from the defects pointed out by the writ petitioners, and it is equally manifest that the Question Booklets of a large number of them were replaced in the examination hall. Furthermore, 94 complaints were received by the Commission pointing out this defect. The Commission examined the representations/ objections and came to a tentative conclusion that the grievances need deeper scrutiny. It, therefore, promptly constituted a Committee of five distinguished academicians of the State who submitted their report dated 19.8.2008. The same is not in the nature of a full-length judgment which is not expected, but it does serialize the grievances in a systematic manner and records its conclusions. On a plain reading of the same, apart from the attendant circumstances, we do not get any impression that it was as per the dictates of the Commission. In other words, the grievances of the candidates were taken care of at two stages. On a plain reading of the same, apart from the attendant circumstances, we do not get any impression that it was as per the dictates of the Commission. In other words, the grievances of the candidates were taken care of at two stages. Firstly, in the examination hall itself where the Question Booklets of a large number of candidates were replaced on their request, and, secondly, by the scrutiny of the five-member Committee. It is clear from the reports of the Centre Superintendents that the examinations were held in a peaceful atmosphere, free from any blemish, and the Question Booklets of many were replaced as per their request. The reports of 25 Centre Superintendents stated that request for replacement were promptly complied with and were given the replacement Question Booklets. Six of the writ petitioners now state before this Court that they did not get the replacement Question Booklets in spite of persistent request appears to us to be an afterthought. In any case, in order to ensure justice to such candidates, the Commission constituted the Committee which examined as many as 94 representations/objections. 19. We must deal with another contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It has been contended that candidates were initially given series A or series C Question Booklets which were replaced by series B Booklet, as a result of which the OMR must have incorrectly read those answer sheets. The Commission has stated in its rejoinder to the counter affidavit in LPA No. 178 of 2009 that the key to the answer of series B of OMR were replaced to adjudge the evaluation correctly. Paragraph-12 of the rejoinder is reproduced hereinbelow:- "12. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit so far as it relates to Annexure- M of the second counter affidavit of the Commission regarding ten candidates whose question booklets of A and C series were replaced by B series question booklets, it is stated that evaluation of their answer sheets has been done by key answer of B series by OMR. Thus the contention of respondent no. 1 that proper scanning has not been done by the Computer (OMR) is denied herewith." This takes care of this part of the grievance of the writ petitioners. Thus the contention of respondent no. 1 that proper scanning has not been done by the Computer (OMR) is denied herewith." This takes care of this part of the grievance of the writ petitioners. 20 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the conditions were very onerous, difficult to be followed, and matching time was not allowed to tackle the replacement Question Booklets. We have already dealt with one aspect of the matter in relation to instruction no. 4 which states that it comprises of 40 pages, the counting of which would take very little time without making any significant erosion in the available time to answer 150 questions. Secondly, 150 questions had to be answered in 120 minutes. The questions not being of descriptive nature, the candidates were required to make a selection out of four suggested answers to tackle one question. Therefore, answering each question will take less than the apportioned time for each question. In other words, every candidate was provided with adequate time to detect the defects and tackle the replacement Question Booklet. We must state that it may leave some of the candidates with the grievance. It is, however, not possible to provide a tailor-made format to every candidate keeping in view the enormity of the selection process. 21. The stringency and the need to follow such instructions in tests for public recruitment was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar (supra). That was with respect to a recruitment test for selection to the State Civil Service. Clause (a) of the instructions stated that "Before commencing your answers please write your register number and other particulars in the space provided above. Do not write your name or register number or sign anywhere in the answer book or on any loose sheets, such as precis sheets, maps, graph papers, etc." The respondents who appeared for the test wrote their roll numbers not only on the cover page, in the spaces provided for it, but even at other places in the answer book in disregard of the instruction issued by the Commission. Such answer books were not subjected to evaluation which was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the Commission to evaluate the answer books. Such answer books were not subjected to evaluation which was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the Commission to evaluate the answer books. The matter reached the Supreme Court and it has been observed in the judgment that the Tribunal in issuing directions approached the matter technically and attempted to make out much where it would have been better part of the discretion to refuse to interfere. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- "3. Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty and morality in the society the insistence by the Commission that no attempt should be made of identification of the candidate by writing his roll number anywhere is in the larger public interest. It is well known that the first page of the answer book on which roll number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is provided to rule any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bona fide mistake. But that is not material. What was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimize any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach. 5. ...Tribunal in issuing directions approached the matter technically and attempted to make out much where it would have been better part of discretion to refuse to interfere. The Tribunalcompletely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion its order cannot be maintained." (Emphasis added) 22. Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar [1995(2) PLJR, presented a comparable situation. The DiVision Bench observed as follows:- "35. Thus, the suggestive answers of four questions i.e. questions nos. 82, 78, 121 and 130 are incorrect. Two of them have already been noticed by the Commission and the marks have been awarded to all the candidates. So far as other two questions are concerned, the suggestive answers are incorrect. Now, the question is as to whether on this ground alone the preliminary test has to be held to be vitiated. The total marks in the preliminary test is 150. So far as other two questions are concerned, the suggestive answers are incorrect. Now, the question is as to whether on this ground alone the preliminary test has to be held to be vitiated. The total marks in the preliminary test is 150. It is an admitted fact that more than one lac candidates had appeared in the examination and thereafter 11,000 candidates have been selected for appearing in the main examination. The unsuccessful candidates did not object to the aforesaid mistakes either during the examination or filed any objection soon after the examination that they were prejudiced and suffered because of the aforesaid wrong suggestive answers. On the other hand, they waited for result of the examination and only when they became unsuccessful they have come out with this case in this Court. They have stated in the writ applications that they had brought the aforesaid mistakes to the notice of the Commission, but nothing has been brought on their behalf on the record to show that such things have been brought to the notice of the Commission, the Commission has emphatically denied that at any point of time they informed about the mistakes in response to the questions. "36. No doubt, there are mistakes in the alternative answers or responses to the four questions, but on that basis it cannot be said that the Commission adopted any unfair means or acted in an unfair manner, on the other hand, the aforesaid mistakes appear to have been committed by the experts to whom the work of setting of questions and their suggestive answers was entrusted. It cannot be said that there was unfair treatment to the non-selectees in particular. All the candidates including the successful candidates have answered the same set of questions and in that view of the matter either all the candidates have suffered equally or took advantages of wrong suggestive answers. In that view of the matter, in spite of the aforesaid errors, in my view, it would not be proper to quash the preliminary test for the aforesaid defects." 23. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has also raised a grievance that the two reports were an eye-wash and were at the dictates of the Commission. We can quite see that the members of the two Committees are distinguished academicians of the State. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has also raised a grievance that the two reports were an eye-wash and were at the dictates of the Commission. We can quite see that the members of the two Committees are distinguished academicians of the State. From the very description of their designations, it appears that all of them (except one) are retired persons and have not to gain anything in life. In the absence of any tangible Proof, on the sole basis of the counsels ingenuity shown during the course of oral submissions, it is difficult to accept that they acted on the dictates of the Commission. On the contrary, we feel that the two reports dealt with two sets of grievances, and record their respective minutes in their reports in a systematic manner, may not be in the nature of a full-length judgment of court. The contention is rejected. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the Commission has not come with clean hands. The contention is stated only to be rejected. The candidates, not the Commission, were the petitioners before the writ court. Secondly, the Commission has placed on record all the relevant materials for an effective adjudication. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to a situation where the aggrieved persons who had approached the court, were found to be guilty of not approaching the court with clean hands. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioners in support of their contention are wholly inappropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 16015 of 2008 has contended that the Rules are bad in law. The contention is stated only to be rejected, being wholly beyond the frame of the writ petition, which was confined to the fairness of the selection process. In view of the provisions of the Patna High Court Rules, the vires of statutory Rules cannot be considered by a Single Judge. Law is well settled that those of the candidates who appeared at the test conducted under the amended Rules cannot turn around and challenge it on that ground. Furthermore, in view of the position that vires of the Rules were not challenged in the writ proceedings, it would not be appropriate for us to make any comment on the validity or otherwise of the amended Rules. 26. Furthermore, in view of the position that vires of the Rules were not challenged in the writ proceedings, it would not be appropriate for us to make any comment on the validity or otherwise of the amended Rules. 26. Enormity of such a huge selection process has to be appreciated. In response to the advertisement, 2,63,265 applications were received, admit cards were issued to all of them which by necessary implication meant that sitting accommodation, as well as like number of Question Booklets and answer sheets, had to be kept ready for all of them. The Commission had to make sitting arrangements at as many as 530 centres, in 34 districts of the State, to accommodate 2,63,265 candidates. If is another matter that 1,76,984 candidates appeared at the test which became known only after test commenced. Evaluation of such a large number of answer sheets, to collate the results, and to publish the same according to the system, of 19,318 successful candidates, is a stupendous job. In this background, some defects are bound to happen and, unless those go to the root of the selection process and is of the nature of wholesale malaise or dishonesty or some oblique motive, can lead to cancellation of the whole of the selection process. The second and the third phase of the selection process are yet to commence. Mistakes, have undoubtedly taken place which have been discussed hereinabove, and the Commission has made sincere and fair attempts to rectify the same. In the totality of the situation, we are convinced that it would be most inappropriate to cancel the entire selection process. The grievances of the aggrieved persons have been considered by the Commission and discussed hereinabove. The remaining/surviving grievances shall be taken care of by the court hereinafter. 27. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadanand Halo Vs. Mamtaz AM Sheikh (supra) may be noticed. That was a case where the selection process for recruitment of 5500 Constables was held in 25 districts of Assam for which as many as two lacs candidates took part. The Supreme Court observed that validity of recruitment could not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. After participating in the selection process, the candidates could not indulge in a roving enquiry. Paragraphs 58 to 60 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- "58. The Supreme Court observed that validity of recruitment could not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. After participating in the selection process, the candidates could not indulge in a roving enquiry. Paragraphs 58 to 60 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- "58. It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into a non-permitted fact-finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of the amicus curiae, or as the case may be, the scrutiny team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings, it was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact-finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ petition and the say of the respondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an appellate tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification. 59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India Vs. S. Vinod Kumar where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party. This was a case where different cut-off marks were fixed for the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. This Court in para 10 of its judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that there was a power in the employer to fix the cut-off marks which power was neither denied nor disputed and further that the cut-off marks were fixed on a rational basis and, therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla where in has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petitioner challenging such examination would not arise. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect: (S. Vinodh Kumar case, SCC p. 107, para 19) 19....34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently con- tend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the Court did not go into those exceptions since the same were not material. 60. In our opinion the first basic thing for such a selection process would be the lack of bona fides or, as the case may be, mala fide exercise of powers by those who were at the helm of selection process. Both the courts below have not recorded any finding that they found any mala fides on the part of any of the State officials who headed the interviews. On the other hand the tenor of the judgments shows that the whole process did not suffer from mala fides, lack of bona fides, bias or political interference. In Union of India Vs. Bikash Kumar this Court observed in para 14 thus: (SCC p. 195) 14. When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice." 28. In view of the materials placed before us, we are convinced that the Commission has acted with fairness and sincerity. The party who makes any instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice." 28. In view of the materials placed before us, we are convinced that the Commission has acted with fairness and sincerity. The two Committees were constituted before publication of the PT result. The recommendations of the two Committees were accepted, the results were published after implementing its suggestions, and went a long way in redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved candidates. Noticing the situation that some defects in the selection process might have escaped attention constituting the second chapter of grievances, the Commission had once again with utmost fairness, incorporated Clause-6 in the PT result, inviting objections/complaints, and is reproduced hereinbelow:- The Commission was mindful of the defects and, therefore, on its own motion, invited objections/representations from the aggrieved candidates which have been duly considered. There are materials on record to show that, in order to redress the grievances of the aggrieved candidates, the Commission issued letters to 134 such candidates, calling them for the second phase of the selection process. Paragraph- 21 of the Commissions supplementary counter affidavit in the writ proceeding is reproduced hereinbelow:- "21. That the Commission held several meetings i.e. on 8.11.2008, 10.11.2008, 11.11.2008, 12.11.2008, 13.11.2008, 28.11.2008 and 1.12.2008. Careful examination of all the complaints was made. 1. It was found that first complaint relating to retotalling was wrong. On retotalling non-change/difference in marks was found. 2. Since the metter was subjudice, the Commission decided to wait for the decision of the Honble High Court. 3. Regarding mistake about category (reservation) it was found that out of 146 such applications the claim of 126 was found to be correct and it was resolved to publish their results which were published on 2.12.2008 giving these candidates extra time to apply for main examination. 4. The fourth type of complaint was found to be incorrect. 5. It was found that 20 candidates had wrongly encoded their roll nos. in their answer sheets. When these roll nos. were corrected with the help of original records, eight candidates were found to be successful. Their results were also published alongwith above 126 candidates. 4. The fourth type of complaint was found to be incorrect. 5. It was found that 20 candidates had wrongly encoded their roll nos. in their answer sheets. When these roll nos. were corrected with the help of original records, eight candidates were found to be successful. Their results were also published alongwith above 126 candidates. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commission could not have done more to rectify the defects which had inadvertently and for bona fide reason crept into the selection process. We are equally convinced that no unfairness, mala fide action, abuse of power, dishonesty, or spirit of favour or disfavour is at all involved in this case. The defects are entirely attributable to the question setters, or the Printers, and the Commission seems to have removed the same in the best possible manner. It is not a case of wide-spread defects, but of limited defects, and have almost entirely been redressed by the Commission in three stages. The candidates are themselves to be blamed if they have failed to cross the cut-off marks. The fourth stage is being taken over by the Court. 29. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Union of India vs. Chakradhar/supra,) is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That was a case where the mischief in conducting the selection was so wide-spread and all-pervasive affecting the results, that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection. One of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) had the occasion to apply the same in the judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar [ 2009(1) PLJR 744 ]. Paragraph 47 of the judgment of this Court is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- "47. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002)3 SCC 146 [2002(2) PLJR (SC) 263] (Union of India Vs. O. Chakradhar), equally covers the present case. The Supreme Court ob- served that the mischief in conducting the selection process was so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the results that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection, the whole selection could be cancelled without issuing individual show-cause notice to each person selected. It has been observed as follows:- 8. The Supreme Court ob- served that the mischief in conducting the selection process was so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the results that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection, the whole selection could be cancelled without issuing individual show-cause notice to each person selected. It has been observed as follows:- 8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities, and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future Course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance. 9. The copy of the report of CBI has been made available to the Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the same was served upon learned counsel for the respondent earlier. To find out the position in the present case, we may have to scrutinize the report of CBI. 10....... According to the report, answer-sheet packets were stealthily opened and answers were filled up in the blank spaces left by the examinees. This happened during the period the bags of the answer-sheets were in the custody of the Chairman. So far as the interview is concerned, it is reported that the two Boards constituted for the interview did not have technical personnel as its member as per requirement. Each member was required to award marks to the candidate in the individual assessment sheets provided to them, and average was to be worked out. The columns for interview marks was later on filled up as per wishes of the Chairman and Member-Secretary of the Board and signatures of the non-official members were obtained on the summary sheet later on. 11. It is mentioned in the report that huge amount of money was taken for selecting the candidates but none is coming forward to indicate as to who and how much one paid for it for fear of being in trouble. 11. It is mentioned in the report that huge amount of money was taken for selecting the candidates but none is coming forward to indicate as to who and how much one paid for it for fear of being in trouble. It is further that non-official Chairman of the Board made payment of printing of the examination paper etc. not to any firm but to one Gaja Raja Yadav. It may also be mentioned that according to the report a large number of applications were missing and postal orders of the missing applications were encashed and misappropriated and even before the closing date of receiving the applications, it started sending applications to the computer firm, for their scrutiny. CBI has named five per-sons as accused in the report, namely, the Chairman of the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, who is a non-official, the Member-Secretary of the Board, an officer of the Railways, one Shri Hanumanth Bhaiya, a Senior Clerk in the Railway Recruitment Board, and Gaja Raja Yadav, the private person to whom payment had been made for printing of the question paper etc. 12. As per the report of CBI the whole selection smacks of mala fides and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of the Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing the final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong a vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice or misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large-scale, wide-spread and all-pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishan Yadav applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Railway Boards decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed." 30. The judgment in Sunil Kumar Sinha (supra) related to a selection process conducted by the Commission where, in the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the entire selection was completely over-taken by wide-spread irregularities and, therefore, the only recourse left was to cancel the entire selection process as a whole. That was a case where the answers had to be recorded in H.B. pencil, were later on erased or altered with ulterior motives and monetary gains. As many as 29 persons including the Chairman, two members, a former Chairperson, and other functionaries of the Commission, were arrested, and are now facing prosecution in the court of the learned Vigilance Court, Patna. The case in hand presents a fundamentally different picture. We, therefore, do not feel the necessity of cancelling the whole of the selection process. 31. Another consideration which weighs in our minds is that for historical reasons, the vacancies have remained unfilled for a long time, as a result of which the State Government is finding it extremely difficult to carry on its duties and functions. The present selection process is for recruitment to 12 services, and takes care of recruitment for five batches, i.e. from 48th to 52nd batch. The selection process of the 53rd to 55th batch is already due and shall take place in future. The present selection process is for recruitment to 12 services, and takes care of recruitment for five batches, i.e. from 48th to 52nd batch. The selection process of the 53rd to 55th batch is already due and shall take place in future. The State Government has placed on record its counter affidavit wherein it is stated that, due to paucity of officers, two posts at the block level, namely, Block Development Officer and Circle Officer, are being manned by one person. It is further stated that, as a result of acute shortage of officers, the entire Government is suffering which is adversely affecting the development of the State. In such a situation, we are in no position to sacrifice the larger interest of the State for the objections of a few. 32. We also take judicial notice of the situation in the Bihar Judiciary. For similar reasons, recruitment to the entry level, namely, Civil Judge (Junior Division), could not take place for a number of years. The Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 similarly provided for selection process for appointment to Civil Judge (Junior Division) once every year after taking into account the anticipated vacancies in the year following. However, examination could not be held each year and 25th Competitive Examination for ap- pointment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was held in the year 1999 and appointments were made in the year 2001, against 152 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division). Thereafter examination for the 26th Competitive Examination for appointment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was held in the year 2006. Ultimately 313 Civil Judges (Junior Division) were appointed in September 2007, and have after completion of training started functioning as Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class in December 2008. In view of acute paucity of judicial officers at all levels, disposal of cases very badly suffered. It is only in 2009, vacant posts of Sub-Judges, Additional District Additional District Judges (Fast-Track Courts) could be filled up. The situation will improve after they are vested with the powers of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. The next competitive examination has already been announced and more than 217 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) will be filled up. 33. This takes us on to the last issue. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is open to us to close the matter. The next competitive examination has already been announced and more than 217 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) will be filled up. 33. This takes us on to the last issue. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is open to us to close the matter. However, there is no doubt that there were some defects in the selection process which have been taken care of by the Commission by constituting two Committees, and also by its administrative decisions, as a result of which the grievances have been redressed. It is a possible situation that a few may still survive. We accordingly direct, as alternatively submitted by the learned Advocate General, and taking a very liberal view of the matter, that there shall be a fresh PT for the 94 candidates who had, after the PT and before the publication of results, submitted their representations before the Commission for fresh test on the ground that they were supplied with defective Question Booklets which were misbound. Only six from amongst them are writ petitioners. We disagree with the learned Advocate General that the relief may be confined to the six writ petitioners, and would prefer to extend the relief all the 94 complainants which includes the six writ petitioners. This is not in the nature of public interest litigation, the grievances of individual candidates have been considered by the Commission and now being considered by this Court. We find no justification in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners to give relief to persons who neither approached the Commission nor this Court. It is a possible situation that persons other than those 94 complainants which include the writ petitioners, may not be left with any genuine grievance. The first round as well as the second round of the selection process for such candidates shall be as nearly, and as practicable, as possible, close to the format which has already taken place, i.e., in identical format. The third phase of the selection process shall be common to all. This shall not come in the way of the second phase of the selection process scheduled to commence on 25.5.2009. 34. In the result, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not feel the necessity of cancelling the entire selection process of the first phase. The Commission shall hold fresh selection process for the 94 candidates indicated hereinabove. 34. In the result, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not feel the necessity of cancelling the entire selection process of the first phase. The Commission shall hold fresh selection process for the 94 candidates indicated hereinabove. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. KISHORE K.MANDAL, J. 35 I agree.