Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1371 (PAT)

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-12-03

RAKESH KUMAR

body2013
ORAL ORDER RAKESH KUMAR 1. Heard Sri Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel – 10, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4/Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BPSC”). The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondent, particularly; respondent/BPSC to declare him as successful candidate in 53rd to 55th Combined Common Competitive Examination. It has been claimed that the petitioner had secured 772 marks and he belongs to the category of Extremely Backward Class as well as Handicapped candidates. He submits that in the aforesaid examination, cut-off marks was 649, whereas, he obtained 772 marks. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4/BPSC and a categoric stand has been taken that the petitioner was in the category of Orthopedic Disabled candidate and as per reservation policy of the State Govt., there are 3% reserved seats for handicapped persons and in the present examination, nine seats were reserved for orthopedic disabled persons. A categoric stand has been taken in paragraph nos. 5 & 6, which are quoted here-in-below:- “5. That it is stated that in terms of the resolution contained in memo no. 62 dated 5.1.2007 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, reservation of one percent each (total 3%) has been provided for those candidates who suffer from Eye Sight disablement, Deaf Dumb disablement and Orthopedic disablement and were not able to compete in the general merit list are selected in accordance with their seniority in the respective disablement i.e. Eye Sight disablement, Deaf Dumb disablement and Orthopedic disablement in the General Quota. Further, in accordance with the provisions as notified by the aforesaid notification dated 5.1.2007, such selected candidates as per their seniority are adjusted in their respective reservation quota to which they belong as against the last of candidates in the said reservation quota. Reference in this regard is made to Clause 1, 2 and 8 of the aforesaid notification. Further, in accordance with the provisions as notified by the aforesaid notification dated 5.1.2007, such selected candidates as per their seniority are adjusted in their respective reservation quota to which they belong as against the last of candidates in the said reservation quota. Reference in this regard is made to Clause 1, 2 and 8 of the aforesaid notification. In the 53rd to 55th Combined Competitive Examination as against 29 vacancies of disabled candidates, 10 candidates each were to be selected who were having Eye Sight Disablement and Deaf Dumb disablement respectively and 09 candidates having Orthopedic disablement were to be selected. 6. That it is stated that the petitioner bearing Roll No. 102848 belongs to extremely backward category and is orthopedically handicapped. He secured 772 marks and his Combined Merit Serial No. is 1832. As per the seniority in the Orthopedic handicapped candidates, the candidate at the bottom of the list who has been selected has obtained 787 marks and his Combined Merit Serial No. is 1505. It would appear from the following table given below that the selection of disabled candidates as per their merit has been made and none of such candidates higher in the merit list have been left out. None of the orthopedic handicapped candidates have been selected either in the Extremely Backward Class Category or in any other reserved category. List of orthopedic handicapped candidates above the writ petitioner in the merit list of orthopedic handicapped candidates. Sl.No. Merit serial Roll No. Name Reservation category Total Marks Remaks 1. 133 102716 Md. Shabbir 01 873 Selected 2. 363 230028 Sailesh Kumar 01 847 Selected 3. 602 246634 Ratan 01 832 Selected 4. 775 309740 Ved Prakash 01 823 Selected 5. 869 234209 Minu Kumari 01 819 Selected 6. 1033 307466 Mulesh Kumar 01 811 Selected 7. 1073 288952 Dewanand Kumar Singh 01 810 Selected 8. 1454 249442 Awanish Kumar 01 790 Selected 9. 1505 280388 Santosh Kumar Singh 01 787 Selected 10. 1509 270956 Pankaj Kumar Jha 01 787 Not Selected 11. 1530 157691 Abhilasha Kumari 01 786 Not Selected 12. 1587 158704 Pankaj Kumar Soni 05 784 Not Selected 13. 1634 130464 Upendra Kumar Yadav 05 781 Not Selected 14. 1712 14791 Jai Prakash Singh 01 778 Not Selected 15. 1746 145767 Subhash Candra Sha 04 776 Not Selected 16. 1804 211884 Vibhishan Kumar 04 773 Not Selected 17. 1530 157691 Abhilasha Kumari 01 786 Not Selected 12. 1587 158704 Pankaj Kumar Soni 05 784 Not Selected 13. 1634 130464 Upendra Kumar Yadav 05 781 Not Selected 14. 1712 14791 Jai Prakash Singh 01 778 Not Selected 15. 1746 145767 Subhash Candra Sha 04 776 Not Selected 16. 1804 211884 Vibhishan Kumar 04 773 Not Selected 17. 1832 102848 Rakesh Kumar 04 772 Not Selected 4. Sri Lalit Kishore, while referring to list of orthopedic handicap candidates, submits that the candidate, who was at serial no. 9, had obtained 787 marks and he was selected, whereas, the petitioner had got 772 marks and above the petitioner, there are other seven persons belonging to orthopedic handicap category, who has obtained higher marks than the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since no one from the category of orthopedic handicap, having lesser marks than the petitioner, has been selected, the petition has got no case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while controverting the stand taken by Sri Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel for the BPSC, submits that all the persons, who have been selected against the orthopedic handicap quota, belong to General Category and since the petitioner, besides orthopedic handicap, was Extremely Backward Class candidate, he was required to be given preference to the persons, who have already been selected against orthopedic handicap category. He submits that the decision of the BPSC is discriminatory. He has argued that on the one hand the petitioner has been treated as Extremely Backward Class candidate and on the other hand, the candidates from the General category even belonging to orthopedic handicap category, have been given preference and as such, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case for directing the respondent to include the name of petitioner as selected over the General category from the category of orthopedic handicap. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the petitioner had claimed his candidature as handicap candidate. In the category of handicap, there can not be any other division, whether a candidate belongs to Extremely Backward Category or General Category as also there can not be any distinction amongst the candidates of orthopedic handicap category. Orthopedic handicap is one class and there can not be any division in the same. 7. In the category of handicap, there can not be any other division, whether a candidate belongs to Extremely Backward Category or General Category as also there can not be any distinction amongst the candidates of orthopedic handicap category. Orthopedic handicap is one class and there can not be any division in the same. 7. In view of the fact that orthopedic handicap candidates, having higher marks than the petitioner, have been selected, there is no ground for passing any positive order in favour of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.