JUDGMENT RAJIV ROY, J.:– The appellant, Bihar Public Service Commission (henceforth for short ‘the BPSC’) Patna, has preferred these two appeals through its Chairman for setting aside the common order and judgment dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh) in C.W.J.C. No. 10649 of 2021 (Utpal Kant & Others Vs. The Bihar Public Service Commisison & Others) and analogous cases by which the writ petitions preferred by the respondents-petitioners were allowed with a direction to ‘the BPSC’ to publish a revised result of the preliminary test of successful candidates (relating to Advertisement No. 01/2020 for 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer) without invoking the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar (henceforth for short ‘the Department’) issued vide memo no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 which was not mentioned in the advertisement so far as the preliminary test is concerned. 2. The matrix of facts leading to the present appeal is/are as follows:— 3. ‘The BPSC’ came out with an Advertisement No. 01/2020 for appointment on 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers (henceforth for short ‘the APO’) Competitive Examination, 2019 on 06.02.2020 It is essential to incorporate the advertisement no. 2. The matrix of facts leading to the present appeal is/are as follows:— 3. ‘The BPSC’ came out with an Advertisement No. 01/2020 for appointment on 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers (henceforth for short ‘the APO’) Competitive Examination, 2019 on 06.02.2020 It is essential to incorporate the advertisement no. 01/2020: fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx 15] tokgjyky usg: ekxZ ¼csyh jksM½ iVuk&800001 foKkiu la-&01@2020] lgk;d vfHk;kstu inkfèkdkjh izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk] 2019 x`g foHkkx] vfHk;kstu funs'kky;] fcgkj ds vUrxZr lgk;d vfHk;kstu inkf/kdkjh ds dqy 553 ¼ikWp lkS frjiu½ inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq lq;ksX; Hkkjrh; mEehnokjksa ls fofgr izi= esa vkWuykbZu vkosnu vkeaf=r fd, tkrs gSaA vkWuykbZu vkosnu Hkjus gsrq foLr`r fn'kk funsZ'k fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] iVuk ds osclkbZV www.bpsc.bih.nic.in ij iznf'kZr gS] bu fjDr inksa dh dksfVokj fooj.kh fuEuor gS %& Ø- la dksfV dqy inksa dh la[;k dqy inksa dh la[;k esa ls 35 Áfr'kr {kSfrt vkj{k.k ds QyLo:i efgykvksa ds fy, vuqekU; inksa dh dqy la[;k 1 vukjf{kr 225 77 2 vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ 55 17 3 vuqlwfpr tkfr 88 33 4 vuqlwfpr tutkfr 01 00 5 vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ 88 39 6 fiNM+k oxZ 74 22 7 fiNM+s oxZ dh efgyk,¡ 22 00 dqy 553 188 2 lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj ds i=kad&2526 fnukad&18-02-2018 ds vkyksd esa jkT; ds oSls Lora=rk lsukfu;k¡ ftUgsa dsUnz }kjk isa'ku Lohd`r gS ds iksrk@iksrh@ukrh@urhuh ds fy, vkjf{kr dqy inksa dh la[;k 11 3 fnO;kaxtu vfèkdkj vfèkfu;e] 2018 ds vkyksd esa fu%'kDrrk ls xzLr mEehnokjksa ds fy, 04 ¼pkj½ izfr'kr vkjf{kr dqy inksa dh la[;k (i) n`f"V ckfèkr (VI) 06 (ii) ewd cfèkj (DD) 05 (iii) vfLFk fodykax (OH) 06 (iv) euksfodkj@cgqfnO;kax 06 2- osrueku %& Level 09 3- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%& fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls fofèk LukrdA 4- mez lhek%& fnukad&01-08-2019 dks U;wure 21 o"kZ] vfèkdre vukjf{kr ¼iq:"k½&37 o"kZ] fiNM+k oxZ] vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ] fiNM+s oxZ dh efgyk ,oa vukjf{kr efgyk&40 o"kZ ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼iq:"k ,oa efgyk½& 42 o"kZ ¼1½ dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] fcgkj ds i=kad&212] fnukad&23-01-2006 ds vkyksd esa oSls mEehnokj tks vafre foKkiu@ijh{kk ds le; mez ds vkèkkj ij ik=rk j[krs Fks] tks fnukad&01-08-2013 ls 01-08-2019 rd dh vofèk esa vfèkdre mez lhek ls vfèkd mez ds gks x;s gSa] Hkh izLrqr foKkiu ds fy, lqik= gksaxs] c'krsZ os vU; vgZrk,¡ iwjh djrs gksaA ¼2½ dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] fcgkj ds ladYi Kkikad&2374] fnukad&16-07-2007 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj ljdkj ds ,sls ljdkjh lsod] tks rhu o"kksZa dh fujarj lsok iw.kZ dj pqds gksa] dks mPprj osrueku dh lsok@laoxZ esa tkus ds fy, vfèkdre vk;q lhek esa 05 ¼ik¡p½ o"kZ dh NwV vuqekU; gSA ¼3½ lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj ds ladYi Kkikad&13062] fnukad&12-10-2017 ds vkyksd esa vfèkdre vk;q lhek ds vfrfjDr fnO;kaxksa dks vfèkdre mez lhek esa 10 o"kksZa dh NwV vuqekU; gSA ¼4½ dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] fcgkj ds i=kad&2447] fnukad& 06-03-1990 ds vkyksd esa( HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks mez lhek esa 03 ¼rhu½ o"kZ rFkk izfrj{kk lsok esa fcrk;h x;h lsok vofèk ds ;ksx ds lerqY; fj;k;r nh tk;sxh] c'krsZa fd mudh okLrfod mez vkosnu nsus dh frfFk dks 53 o"kZ ls vfèkd ugha gksA 5- p;u izfØ;k%&lgkd vfHk;kstu inkfèkdkjh ds p;u gsrq izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds rhu pj.k gksaxs%& ¼1½ izkjafHkd ijh{kk%&izkjfEHkd ijh{kk esa fuEukafdr nks iz'u i= gksaxs%& Øñlañ i= fo"k; iw.kkZad 1 izFke i= lkekU; vè;;u 100 2 f}rh; i= fofèk 150 iz'u i= fgUnh vkSj vaxzsth nksuksa Hkk"kk esa gksaxsA izkjfEHkd ijh{kk esa cgqfodYiksa i= vkèkkfjr oLrqfu"B iz'u gksaxs] ftuesa ls ,d lgh mÙkj gksxkA izR;sd i= dh vofèk nks ?kaVs dh gksxh] ftlesa 100 iz'u iwNs tk;saxsA izR;sd xyr mÙkj ds fy, 1@4 vad dkV fy;k tk;sxkA izkjfEHkd ijh{kk dsoy tk¡p ijh{kk gksxh] ftlds vkèkkj ij eq[; ijh{kk gsrq ;ksX; mEehnokjksa dk p;u fd;k tk;sxkA [TRUNCATED] Column-5 of the said advertisement dealt with the selection process. Its sub column (3) related to interview in which as per note no. 1, the minimum marks to be secured by the mains examinee to qualify for interview was detailed out. As per it, only those candidates will be declared qualified for interview who will secure minimum marks in the written examination as per the resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007. The minimum marks for each category was also incorporated which read as follows:— (i) unreserved category – 40% (ii) backward class – 36.5% (iii) extremely backward class – 34% (iv) scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, women and physically disabled candidate - 32% 5. note-2 further stated that in line with memo no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007, two and half times more candidates of the total vacancy will be called for the interview from the successful mains examination candidates. 6. as per note-3 every successful candidate will have to appear before the Interview Board while note-4 stated that the marks of the mains examination as well as the interview will be added to prepare the merit list. 7. The aforesaid sub column (3) has been detailed out here to show that ‘the BPSC’ was very clear in the advertisement that for the mains examination candidates to be selected for interview, the same will be in line with the resolution no. 2374 dated 06.07.2007. 8. It is further important to bring on record another letter no. 7. The aforesaid sub column (3) has been detailed out here to show that ‘the BPSC’ was very clear in the advertisement that for the mains examination candidates to be selected for interview, the same will be in line with the resolution no. 2374 dated 06.07.2007. 8. It is further important to bring on record another letter no. 21/BPSC-20/2016/Sa/Pra/9698 dated 14/07/2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the G.A. Department’) (as the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is now known as).:— i=kad&21@ch-ih-,l-lh-&20@2016 lk-iz- 9698@ fcgkj ljdkj lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx izs"kd] ds'ko dqekj flag] Hkk-iz-ls ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA lsok esa] lfpo] fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] fcgkj] iVukA iVuk&15] fnukad 14-7-2016 fo"k;&fcgkj vlSfud lsok esa lhèkh fu;qfDr gsrq fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr dh tkus okyh la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk dks lle; vk;ksftr fd;s tkus ds fufeÙk fcgkj vlSfud lsok ¼dk;Zikfydk 'kk[kk½ vkSj fcgkj duh; vlSfud lsok ¼HkrhZ½ fu;ekoyh] 1951 ds ifjf'k"V ^?k* esa vafdr ijh{kk&lajpuk esa la'kksèku ds lacaèk esaA izlax%& vk;ksx dk i=kad&462 fnukad 12-05-2016 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa funsZ'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd bl foHkkx ds i=kad&10740 fnukad&14-11-1994 }kjk fcgkj vlSfud lsok esa lhèkh fu;qfDr gsrq fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ¼izkjafHkd ,oa eq[;½ ds fy, vk;ksx }kjk izLrkfor iqujhf{kr ikB~;Øe ,oa ijh{kk&lajpuk esa ljdkj dh Lohd`fr lalwfpr dh xbZ FkhA mDr i= }kjk Lohd`r iqujhf{kr ikB~;Øe ,oa ijh{kk&lajpuk dks la'kksfèkr fd;s tkus lacaèkh vk;ksx dh iw.kZ ihB ds cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ,oa vk;ksx ds izLrko ds vkyksd esa mDr i=kad }kjk iqujhf{kr ijh{kk&lajpuk dks fuEukafdr gn rd la'kksfèkr fd;s tkus gsrq ljdkj dh Lohd`fr lalwfpr dh tkrh gS& iwoZ dk izkoèkku la'kksfèkr izkoèkku izkjafHkd ijh{kk Hkkx&1 izkjafHkd ijh{kk Hkkx&1 1- izkjafHkd ijh{kk nks ?k.Vksa dh gksxh] ftlesa lkekU; vè;;u dk ,d i= 150 ¼,d lkS ipkl½ vadksa dk gksxkA iz'u i= fgUnh vkSj vaxzsth nksuksa esa gksaxsA izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds lkekU; vè;;u i= ds iz'u&i= oLrqfu"B ,oa cgqfodYi izdkj ds gksaxsA mEehnokj oLrqiwjd iz'u&i=ksa ¼iz'u iqfLrdk½ dk mÙkj nsus ds fy, dSydqysVjksa dk iz;ksx ugha dj ldrs gSaA izkjafHkd ijh{kk egt tk¡p ijh{kk gksxh] ftlds vkèkkj ij eq[; ijh{kk gsrq mEehnokjksa dk p;u fd;k tk;sxkA vr% blesa izkIr fd;s vadksa dk eq[; ijh{kk ls dksbZ lacaèk ugha gksxkA eq[; ijh{kk ds fy;s pqus tkus okys mEehnokjksa dh la[;k dqy lalwfpr fjfDr;ksa dh nl xquh vFkok izkjafHkd ijh{kk esa lfEefyr dqy mEehnokjksa ds nl izfr'kr gksxhA bl lacaèk esa vk;ksx dk fu.kZ; vafre :i ls ekU; gksxkA izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds izkIrkadksa ds tksM+ dh 'kq}rk tk¡p djkus ,oa blds izkIrkad fuxZr djus dk izkoèkku ugha gSA 1- izkjafHkd ijh{kk dh izfØ;k ,oa izfofèk esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gksxhA dsoy vkaf'kd ifjorZu ;g gksxk fd izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds vkèkkj ij eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, pqus tkus okys mEehnokjksa dh la[;k dqy lalwfpr fjfDr;ksa dh nl xquh gksxhA blesa mÙkh.kZrk vfuok;Z gksxh vkSj blds fy, vk;ksx }kjk fuèkkZfjr U;wure vgZrkad izkIr djuk gksxkA 2- eq[; ijh{kk Hkkx&2 2- eq[; ijh{kk Hkkx&2 eq[; ijh{kk ds vfuok;Z fo"k;& ¼1½ lkekU; fgUnh 100 vad dk ¼2½ lkekU; vè;;u&i=&1 200 vad dk ¼3½ lkekU; vè;;u&i=k&2 200 vad dk fVIi.kh&lkekU fgUnh esa izkIrkad yCèkkad vU; fyf[kr i=ksa vkSj O;fDrRo ijh{k.k ds yCèkkadksa esa ugha tksM+k tk;sxk] ysfdu tks mEehnokj vfuok;Z lkekU; fgUnh i=k esa 30 izfr'kr yCèkkad izkIr ugha djsaxs] os fyf[kr ijh{kk esa ;ksX;rk izkIr ugha le>s tk;saxsA eq[; ijh{kk ds vfuok;Z fo"k;& ¼1½ lkekU; fgUnh 100 vad dk ¼2½ lkekU; vè;;u&i=&1 300 vad dk ¼3½ lkekU; vè;;u&i=&2 300 vad dk lkekU; fgUnh 100 vadksa dk ,oa ijh{kk dh vofèk 3 ?kaVs dh gksxhA bl fo"k; esa 30 izfr'kr yCèkkad izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk] fdUrq esèkk fuèkkZj.k ds iz;kstukFkZ bldh x.kuk ugha dh tk;sxhA lkekU; vè;;u fo"k; ds vUrxZr nks iz'u&i= gksaxs] muesa ls izR;sd iz'u&i= 300 vadksa dk gksxk rFkk ijh{kk dh vofèk 3&3 ?kaVs dh gksxhA 3- ¼1½ izFke ,sfPNd fo"k; izFke i=&200 vad dk f}rh; i=&200 vad dk ¼3½ f}rh; ,sfPNd fo"k; izFke i=&200 vad dk f}rh; i=&200 vad dk mi;qZDr vfuok;Z fo"k;ksa ds vfrfjDr eq[; ijh{kk ds fuEufyf[kr oSdfYid fo"k; gksaxsA mEehnokj dsoy nks fo"k; gh ys ldrs gSa] fdarq fdlh Hkh gkyr esa Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; ls ,d ls vfèkd fo"k; ugha ys ldrs gSaA vkWulZ ijh{kk dk gSA fVIi.kh&,sfPNd fo"k;ksa dk ekud yxHkx ogh gksxk] tks iVuk fo'ofo|ky; ds rhu o"khZ; vkWulZ ijh{kk dk gSA 3- ,sfPNd fo"k; ,d i=&300 vad dk izR;sd vH;FkhZ dks iwoZ ds gh oSdfYid fo"k;ksa ds fo"k; dksM&04 ls fo"k; dksM&37 rd esa ls ek= ,d oSdfYid fo"k; dk gh p;u djuk gksxk] ftlesa iwoZ ds nksuksa iz'u&i=ksa dks feykdj 300 vadksa dk ek=k ,d gh iz'u&i= gksxk ,oa ijh{kk dh vofèk 3 ?kaVs dh gksxhA fVIi.kh&,sfPNd fo"k;ksa dk ekud yxHkx ogh gksxk tks iVuk fo'ofo|ky; ds rhu o"khZ; fVIi.kh&¼1½ iz'u&i= fgUnh vkSj vaxzsth nksuksa esa gksaxsA ¼2½ lHkh Hkk"ksÙkj fo"k;ksa ds mÙkj fgUnh ¼nsoukxjh½ ;k vaxzsth ;k mnwZ fyfi esa ls fdlh ,d gh Hkk"kk esa mÙkj fn;k tk ldrk gSA vU; Hkk"kk esa mÙkj nsus dh NwV mEehnokjksa dks ugha gksxhA ¼3½ iz'u&i=ksa ds mÙkj nsus dk fodYi ysus okys mEehnokj ;fn pkgsa rks dsoy rduhdh 'kCnksa@okD;ka'kksa@mDr va'kksa ds ;fn dksbZ gS] fooj.k dk muds }kjk pquh xbZ Hkk"kk ds lkFk vaxzsth :ikUrj ns ldrs gSaA ¼4½ mEehnokj dks vius iz'u i= ds mÙkj Lo;a vius gkFk ls fy[kus gksaxsA fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa blds fy, nwljs ls lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxhA ¼5½ ijh{kk ds lHkh fo"k;ksa esa de&ls&de n'kZu 'kkL= 'kCnksa esa dh xbZ laxfBr] lw{e vkSj l'kDr vfHkO;fDr dks Js; feysxkA ¼6½ iz'u&i=ksa esa tgk¡ dgha Hkh vko';d gks] eki rkSy ls lEcU/k iz'u ehVjh iz.kkyh esa gksaxsA ¼7½ mEehnokj iz'u i=a ds mÙkj nsrs le; dsoy Hkkjrh; vadksa ds vUrjkZ"Vªh; :i ¼tSls& 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9½ dk gh iz;ksx djsaA ¼8½ mEehnokj ;fn pkgsa rks eq[; ijh{kk esa dSydqysVjksa dk iz;ksx dj ldrs gSaA ijh{kk esa fdlh ls dSydqysVj ekaxus ;k vkil esa cnyus dh vuqefr ugha gSAa fo"k; dksM fo"k; fo"k; dksM fo"k; 04 d`f"k foKku 05 i'kqikyu rFkk i'kq fpfdRld foKku 06 ekuo foKku 07 ouLifr foKku 08 jlk;u foKku 09 flfoy bathfu;jh 10 okf.kfT;d 'kkL=k rFkk ys[kk fofèk 11 vFkZ'kkL=k 12 fo|qr bathfu;jh 13 Hkwxksy 14 Hkw&foKku 15 bfrgkl 16 Je ,oa lekt dY;k.k 17 fofèk 18 izcUèk 19 xf.kr 20 ;kaf=d bathfu;jh 21 22 HkkSfrdh 23 jktuhfr foKku ,oa varjkZ"Vªh; lacaèk 24 euksfoKku 25 yksd iz'kklu 26 lekt 'kkL= 27 lkaf[;dh 28 izk.kh foKku 29 fgUnh Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 30 vaxzsth Hkk"kk 31 mnwZ Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 32 caxyk Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 33 laLd`r Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 34 Qkjlh Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 35 vjch Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 36 ikyh Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; 37 eSFkyh Hkk"kk vkSj lkfgR; fVIi.kh&¼1½ mEehnokjksa dks fuEufyf[kr fo"k; ,d lkFk ysus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxh& ¼d½ jktuhfr foKku ,oa varjkZ"Vªh; lacaèk rFkk yksd iz'kklu ¼[k½ okf.kfT;d 'kkL= ,oa ys[kk fofèk rFkk izcUèk ¼x½ ekuo foKku rFkk lekt 'kkL= ¼?k½ xf.kr rFkk lkaf[;dh ¼Ä½ d`f"k foKku rFkk i'kqikyu ,oa fpfdRlk foKku ¼p½ izcUèk rFkk yksd iz'kklu ¼N½ bathfu;jh fo"k;ksa tSls& flfoy bathfu;jh] fo|qr bathfu;jh ,oa ;kaf=d bathfu;jh esa ,d ls vfèkd fo"k; ughaA ¼2½ Hkk"kk fo"k;ksa] ;Fkk fgUnh] vaxzsth] mnwZ] caxyk] laLd`r] Qkjlh] vjch ,oa ikyh esa ls ;fn mEehnokj pkgsa rks fdlh ,d Hkk"kk dks j[k ldrs gSaA ¼3½ izR;sd oSdfYid fo"k; ds nks i= gksaxs rFkk izR;sd i= 200 vadksa dk gksxkA ¼4½ izR;sd i= rhu ?kaVs dh vofèk dk gksxkA ¼5½ iz'u&i= fgUnh vkSj vaxzsth nksuksa esa gksaxsA ¼6½ lHkh Hkk"ksÙkj fo"k;ksa ds mÙkj fgUnh ¼nsoukxjh½ ;k vaxzsth ;k mnwZ fyfi esa ls fdlh ,d gh Hkk"kk esa mÙkj fn;k tk ldrk gSA vU; Hkk"kk esa mÙkj nsus dh NwV mEehnokjksa dks ugha gksxhA ¼7½ iz'u i=ksa ds mÙkj nsus dk fodYi ysus okys mEehnokj ;fn pkgs rks dsoy rduhdh 'kCnksa@okD;ka'kksa@mDr va'kksa ds ;fn dksbZ gS] fooj.k dk muds }kjk pquh xbZ Hkk"kk ds lkFk vaxzsth :ikUrj ns ldrs gSaA ¼8½ mEehnokj dks vius iz'u i= ds mÙkj Lo;a vius gkFk ls fy[kus gksaxsA fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa blds fy;s nwljs ls lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxhA ¼9½ ijh{kk ds lHkh fo"k;ksa esa de&ls&de 'kCnksa esa dh xbZ laxfBr] lw{e vkSj l'kDr vfHkO;fDr dk Js; feysxkA ¼10½ iz'u&i=ksa esa tgk¡ dgha Hkh vko';d gks eki rkSy ls lEca/k iz'u ehVjh iz.kkyh esa gksaxsA ¼11½ mEehnokj iz'u i=ksa ds mÙkj nsrs le; dsoy Hkkjrh; vadksa ds varjkZ"Vªh; :i ¼tSls& 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9½ dk gh iz;ksx djsaA ¼12½ mEehnokj ;fn pkgsa rks eq[; ijh{kk esa dSydqysVjksa dk iz;ksx dj ldrs gSaA ijh{kk esa fdlh ls dSydqysVj ekaxus ;k vkil esa cnyus dh vuqefr ugha gSA 4- O;fDrRo ijh{k.k% Hkkx&3 ¼1½ eq[; ijh{kk esa lQyhHkwr mEehnokjksa dk O;fDrRo ijh{k.k 150 vadksa dk gksxkA ¼2½ vk;ksx lQy mEehnokj dks muesa ls fdlh Hkh lsok ;k in ds fy;s vuq'kaflr djus dk vfèkdkj j[krk gS] ftlds fy, mEehnokj us bPNk izdV dh gS rFkk ftlds fy;s vk;ksx mls ;ksX; le>rk gSA 4- O;fDrRo ijh{k.k% Hkkx&3 ¼1½ eq[; ijh{kk esa lQyhHkwr mEehnokjksa dk O;fDrRo ijh{k.k 120 vadksa dk gksxkA ¼2½ vk;ksx lQy mEehnokj dks muesa ls fdlh Hkh lsok ;k in ds fy;s vuq'kaflr djus dk vfèkdkj j[krk gS] ftlds fy, mEehnokj us bPNk izdV dh gS rFkk ftlds fy;s vk;ksx mls ;ksX; le>rk gSA ¼3½ rnqijkar eq[; ijh{kk ds 900 vad ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds fy, 120 vad & dqy 1020 vadksa ds vkèkkj ij esèkk lwph rS;kj djrs gq, vkj{k.k dksfVokj vafre ijh{kkQy dk izdk'ku fd;k tk;sxkA fdlh oSdfYid@,sfPNd fo"k; ds fy, iwoZ esa vyx&vyx i=ksa ds fy, fuèkkZfjr ikB~;Øeksa dks lfEefyr ekurs gq, ml fo"k; ds fy, iz'u&i= rS;kj fd;s tk;saxsA 6- foHkkxh; i=kad&10740 fnukad&14-11-1994 }kjk la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ¼eq[; ,oa izkjafHkd½ ds fy, vk;ksx ls izLrkfor ikB~;Øe dh Lohd`fr lalwfpr dh xbZ gS] tks fcgkj xtV vlkèkkj.k vad la[;k&245 fnukad&15-07-1995 dks izdkf'kr gS& ds 'ks"k rF; ;Fkkor jgsaxsA** fo'oklHkktu ¼ds'ko dqekj flag½ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA 9. As per it, the clause (column-1) relating to selection of candidates with respect to Preliminary Test was modified to the extent that on the basis of Preliminary Test so held, ten times of the total vacancy will be selected for appearing in the mains examination. 10. The respondents-petitioners submitted their application forms and accordingly appeared in the preliminary test examination held on 07/02/2021. 11. ‘The BPSC’ came out with the result of successful candidates from the preliminary test examination on 27/04/2021. Of the 19201 candidates, who took the preliminary test examination, 3995 candidates were declared qualified to appear in the mains examination for the 553 vacancies. 12. The category was cut-off marks was also published with the result : 3- mi;qZDr ijh{kkQy esa vkj{k.k dksfVokj dV&vkWQ vad fuEuor~ gS%& Category Cut-off Marks Unreserved 138.750 Unreserved (Female) 125.000 EWS 78.750 EWS (Female) - SC 78.750 SC (Female) - ST 105.875 EBC 78.750 EBC (Female) - BC 78.875 BC (Female) — BCL 88.125 Disabled (VI) 79.125 Disabled (DD) 82.875 Disabled (OH) 92.125 Disabled (MD) 94.125 Grandchild of Ex- Freedom Fighter 79.375 13. Thus, as against publication of result of 5530 successful candidates ( for 553 vacancies) only 3950 candidates were declared successful to appear in mains examination. 14. After publication of the result, a day later on 28.04.2021, ‘the BPSC’ came out with a clarification with regard to the selection of the candidates stating therein that the result has been published in the light of the Resolution No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 and 6706 dated 01.10.2008 in which the minimum qualifying marks were inscribed. It is again essential to incorporate the said clarification. It is again essential to incorporate the said clarification. ^^fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] iVuk fnukad 27-04-2021 dks foKkiu la[;k&01@2020] lgk;d vfHk;kstu inkfèkdkjh ¼izkjfEHkd½ izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ijh{kkiQy esa vafdr dV&vkWQ vad ds lacaèk esa Li"Vhdj.k lgk;d vfHk;kstu inkfèkdkjh ¼izkjfEHkd½ izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ¼foñlañ 01@2020½ dk ijh{kkQy fnukad 27-04-2021 dks izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vkj{k.k dksfVokj dV&vkWQ vad Hkh vafdr gSA dkfeZd ,oe~ iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] fcgkj ds ladYi la[;k 2374] fnukad 16-07-2007 dh dafMdk 7 ,oa i=kad 6706 fnukad 01-10-2008 ds vkyksd esa mDr ijh{kk ds vUrxZr U;wure vgZrkad (Minimum Qualifying Marks) fuEuor~ gS%& dksfV dqy iw.kkZad&246 ds vuqlkj U;wure vgZrkad lkekU; oxZ ¼iq:"k½ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ¼iq:"k½ 40 izfr'kr¾98-400 fiNM+k oxZ ¼iq:"k½ 36-5 izfr'kr¾89-790 vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ¼iq:"k½ 34 izfr'kr¾83-640 vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] efgyk ,oa fodykax 32 izfr'kr¾78-720 mi;qZDr U;wure vgZrkad (Minimum Qualifying Marks) izkIr ugha djusokys mEehnokjksa dks esèkk lwph esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkjf{kr oxksZa&vuqlwfpr tkfr] vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ] fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ esa 10 xq.kh la[;k ds vuqlkj i;kZIr la[;k esa U;wure vgZrkad izkIr mEehnokj miyCèk ugha gksus ds dkj.k lEcfUèkr dksfV;ksa dh efgykvksa lfgr fu'kDr mEehnokj] Lora=rk lsukuh dksfV ds lHkh mEehnokj liQy mEehnokjksa dh lwph esa 'kkfey gSA vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds vUrxZr lQy ?kksf"kr vfUre iq:"k mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad&83-750 gS tcfd mDr dksfV ds vUrxZr vfUre lQy ?kksf"kr efgyk mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad&78-750 gS tks mDr dksfV dk dV&vkWQ vad gSA fiNM+k oxZ ds vUrxZr lQy ?kksf"kr vfUre iq:"k mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad&90-250 gS tcfd mDr dksfV ds vUrxZr vfUre lQy ?kksf"kr efgyk mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad&78-875 gS tks mDr dksfV dk dV&vkWQ vad gSA vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds vUrxZr lQy ?kksf"kr vfUre iq:"k mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad& 98-500 gS tcfd mDr dksfV ds vUrxZr vfUre lQy ?kksf"kr efgyk mEehnokj dk dqy izkIrkad&78-750 gS tks mDr dksfV dk dV&vkWQ vad gSA la;qDr lfpo≶&ijh{kk fu;a=kd fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] iVuk** 15. Aggrieved, the respondent-petitioners preferred CWJC No. 10649 of 2021 (Utpal Kant & Others Vs. The B.P.S.C & Others) & CWJC No. 12134 of 2021 (Dilshad Ahmad and Another Vs. the B.P.S.C & Another) alleging therein that the Advertisement No. 1/2020 clearly specified in sub column-3 that the resolution no. Aggrieved, the respondent-petitioners preferred CWJC No. 10649 of 2021 (Utpal Kant & Others Vs. The B.P.S.C & Others) & CWJC No. 12134 of 2021 (Dilshad Ahmad and Another Vs. the B.P.S.C & Another) alleging therein that the Advertisement No. 1/2020 clearly specified in sub column-3 that the resolution no. 2374 dated 06.07.2007 will be applicable in the mains examination for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview and as such the same cannot be made applicable in the preliminary examination. 16. The contention of the respondents-petitioners further was that in view of the clear statement made in the advertisement that the resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 notification will be applicable for the mains examination, ‘the BPSC’ was duty bound to publish the result of successful candidates to the tune of ten times of the vacancy. 17. The further contention was that as ‘the BPSC’ has tried to change the goalpost mid way, the same is liable to be interfered with and they be directed to publish the result of the preliminary test of successful candidates without invoking the said resolution. 18. ‘The BPSC’ appeared in the matter and contended that:— (i) the resolution dated 16.07.2007 of ‘the Department’ has to be uniformly applied for all the written examinations and those who could not secure the minimum qualifying marks will stand disqualified; (ii) the said resolution dated 16.07.2007 automatically applies to entire selection process even if it was not mentioned in the advertisement; (iii) those who have been selected are more meritorious than the respondents-petitioners herein and as such they cannot question the correctness of the result of the preliminary examination so conducted/published. (iv) in any case ten times of the unreserved category candidates have already been called for and the shortage relates only to reserved category. 19. (iv) in any case ten times of the unreserved category candidates have already been called for and the shortage relates only to reserved category. 19. The learned Single Judge took up the matter and after hearing the parties and perusing the records, came to the conclusion that:— (i) clause -5 of the advertisement mentions about the resolution dated 16.07.2007 issued by ‘the Department’ specifying that it will be applied to the candidates to be invited for the interview on the basis of the written examination; (ii) as ‘the BPSC’ specifically prescribed the said condition for the mains examination, it is clear that it does not apply to the preliminary test examination; (iii) as the advertisement did not mentioned applicability of Resolution No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 for the preliminary examination, ‘the BPSC’ could not have invoked the same in selecting the candidate for the main examination. (iv) this in Court’s opinion amounts to deviation from the terms of advertisement which cannot be permitted; (v) it was open for ‘the BPSC’ to have prescribed such requirement by mentioning it in the advertisement as was done for the mains examination; (vi) as it was not mentioned for the preliminary test, the aspirants had genuine belief that it will not be applicable for the purpose of preliminary test; (vii) thus deviating from the terms of advertisement could not have been subsequently applied; (viii) accordingly, the learned Single vide common order dated 23.08.2021 held as follows :— “14. For the aforesaid reasons these applications succeed. These writ applications are allowed. Consequently, the respondent B.P.S.C. is directed to publish a revised result of the preliminary test of successful candidates, without invoking the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar issued vide Memo No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007, which was not mentioned in the advertisement for preliminary test. The B.P.S.C. shall thereafter proceed accordingly, in the matter of the selection process in question”. 20. Aggrieved, now it was the turn of ‘the BPSC’ to prefer appeal against the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10649 of 2021 and CWJC No. 12134 of 2021. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. 20. Aggrieved, now it was the turn of ‘the BPSC’ to prefer appeal against the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10649 of 2021 and CWJC No. 12134 of 2021. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Counsel appearing for ‘the BPSC’ contended that the amended rules do not subscribe for any minimum qualifying marks to be obtained either in the preliminary examination or the mains examination. It was further contended by him that there was clear reference to the resolution issued by ‘the Department’ vide Memo no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 for fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the mains examination and clause-5 of the said advertisement dealt with the selection process and four notes have been added showing the applicability of the aforesaid resolution. As such ‘the BPSC’ determined the minimum qualifying marks for preliminary exam too on the basis of aforesaid resolution. 23. He further contended that as the resolution dated 16.07.2007 existed from before, it will be presumed that the candidates appearing in the examination not only had the knowledge of it, they knew before hand about its applicability in the preliminary exams also. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that those who have been selected are more meritorious than the respondents-petitioners and as such they have no locus standi to question the correctness of the result of the preliminary test published by ‘the BPSC’. Further contention was that shortfall of the candidates for the written examination relates to reserved category. So far as the unreserved category is concerned, more than ten times of the available seats have been called for. It was next contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in any case, ‘the BPSC’ had issued clarification on 28.04.2021 to put the matter at rest. 24. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel cited a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 2120, 2150 & 2176 of 2016 (Tulika Shekhar & Others Vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretarycum- Chairman, Bihar Vikas Mission & Ors) reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 1012 with special reference to paragraph nos. 22 and 23 which read as follows:— “22. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretarycum- Chairman, Bihar Vikas Mission & Ors) reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 1012 with special reference to paragraph nos. 22 and 23 which read as follows:— “22. Coming to the issue relating to the dynamics of the proposition that the rules of game cannot be changed after the game has been played, we find that while proceeding to refer the judgment in the case of K.Manjusree (supra), the three Judges Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has also referred to other judgment particularly the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chandra Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 . From a perusal of paragraphs 11 to 14 of the order in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), we find that the issue raised for reference is about the alteration in the eligibility criteria. In the instant case, it is not the stand of the State that the appellants were ineligible to apply and face the interview. To the contrary, it is in order to select the best out of those who were within the zone of consideration that the minimum benchmark to be obtained during interview was fixed. We, therefore, see no reason to keep the matter pending on account of the reference before a Larger Bench moreso in view of the reasons which led to the adoption of a criteria for selection after the interview and before declaration of final results. In our opinion such a professional engagement, in order to fulfill the objective of the Mission, inherently requires the scrutiny and selection of the most eminent who possess a higher level of proficiency and skill in their respective fields. The level of proficiency to be possessed by a candidate on the basis of assessment during interview is the prerogative of the employer unless it could be shown that such a criteria is otherwise arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We find that in order to sort out the best and select those who would be able to fulfil the object of the Mission with their ultimate capacity, cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We find that in order to sort out the best and select those who would be able to fulfil the object of the Mission with their ultimate capacity, cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The accomplishment of a candidate can be explored during interview and apart from the objective allocation of marks, the Selection Committee cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by deciding to select only those who have achieved a minimum level of performance during interview. This does not amount to changing the rules of the game inasmuch as firstly there was no such prohibition in the advertisement, secondly no prejudice has been caused to the appellants and thirdly no malice in fact has been alleged. The entire exercise was to choose the best players from amongst those who had played the game. Since the introduction of the criteria by the Selection Committee is not to deliberately non-suit the appellants, the decision dated 1st July, 2016 that has culminated into the impugned notice dated 25th July, 2016 cannot be said to be suffering from malice in law. 23. We have also come across some other judgment that deserve mention, namely, that in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal delivered on 7th October, 2016 reported in (2016) 10 SCC 484 . A difference of opinion was recorded by the Bench in the said report and the case was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for final adjudication. One of the Hon’ble Judge held that in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the appellant therein the decision that had been taken for fixing a minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by the candidate in the interview was not unlawful. However, in the dissenting opinion of the other Hon’ble Judge it was recorded in paragraph 45 that there was a clear impediment in proceeding to lay down a minimum pass mark for interview which was meant only for the appellant as he was the lone candidate for consideration. The aforesaid was, therefore, a clear suggestion where only one candidate was available and he was sought to be eliminated by introduction of the said Rule”. 25. The aforesaid was, therefore, a clear suggestion where only one candidate was available and he was sought to be eliminated by introduction of the said Rule”. 25. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions and the same is fit to be set aside. 26. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the advertisement no. 01/2020 would reveal that the Resolution No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 was made applicable for the interview purpose only from those candidates who take the mains examination. 27. It was further contended by him that once the said advertisement specified that 2007 resolution will be applicable to the mains exam qualifying for the interview, ‘the BPSC’ cannot be allowed to apply the same on the preliminary examination. He further submitted that when the 2007 resolution was not applicable in the preliminary test examination as per the advertisement, ‘the BPSC’ was duty bound to publish result without applying the resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007. 28. The learned counsel lastly submitted that thus the result published by ‘the BPSC’ cannot be sustained and as such, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in directing it to publish revised result. As such the appeals herein are fit to be dismissed. 29. We have heard the parties at length and perused the records. 30. The points for the consideration in the present appeals are (i) whether the resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 will be applicable only for the selection of candidates for interview from the mains examination (as had been published in the advertisement no. 01/2020) or it will be applicable to the preliminary examination also as ‘the BPSC’ claimed? (ii) whether ‘the BPSC’ had limited the said resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 in the advertisement to those candidates who would qualify for interview from the main examination? (iii) whether it came out with any clarification/corrigendum before the publication of preliminary test result on its applicability on the preliminary test examinees also? (iv) whether in its absence, ‘the BPSC’ can be allowed to publish the preliminary test result applying the 2007 resolution? (v) whether as such the result published by ‘the BPSC’ is fair and sustainable in law? 31. (iv) whether in its absence, ‘the BPSC’ can be allowed to publish the preliminary test result applying the 2007 resolution? (v) whether as such the result published by ‘the BPSC’ is fair and sustainable in law? 31. The admitted facts are that on 06.02.2020, ‘the BPSC’ came out with the Advertisement No. 01/2020 for the post of 553 posts of APO’s and its column/notes clearly envisaged that resolution no. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 will be applicable to the mains examination candidates who qualify for the interview to the tune of two and half times of the total vacancy. 32. Another admitted fact is that it never came out with any clarification regarding its applicability on the preliminary test result also. 33. Further ‘the BPSC’ conducted the preliminary test a year later on 07.02.2021 and thereafter published result on 27.04.2021. However, instead of 5530 candidates, who were supposed to qualify for the mains examination, only 3995 candidates were declared successful. 34. To supplement the same, on the next day i.e 28.04.2021, a clarification was issued that the result was published in line with the 2007 resolution. It is important to repeat here that the advertisement was published in February, 2020 and the examination was conducted a year later on 07.02.2021. In between, no clarification was issued by ‘the BPSC’ that 2007 resolution will be applicable in the preliminary test also. 35. It was only after the result was published on 27.04.2021 where 3995 candidates were declared qualified for the mains examination that ‘the BPSC’ chose to publish a clarification on the next day (28.04.2021). 36. It is to be noted herein that the marks of the preliminary test is not taken into account for the final selection and the same is just a screening process. Only the marks of the written examination followed by the interview marks are totalled for the final selection. 37. This Court summoned the original records relating to the decision taken by ‘the BPSC’ which prompted them to issue the clarification dated 28.04.2021. Accordingly, original file was produced before us and we have perused. Upon going through the original records, we found that ‘the BPSC’ took the decision to implement the 2007 resolution on preliminary test result on 27.04.2021 at 1:00 P.M and it is not supported by any reasons. In other words, arbitrarily decision is taken. 38. Accordingly, original file was produced before us and we have perused. Upon going through the original records, we found that ‘the BPSC’ took the decision to implement the 2007 resolution on preliminary test result on 27.04.2021 at 1:00 P.M and it is not supported by any reasons. In other words, arbitrarily decision is taken. 38. It is important to note that after it prepared the result in line with 16.07.2007 resolution, ‘the BPSC’ published it on 27.04.2021. It was only thereafter that they sat on 27.04.2021 at 1:00 P.M. and took decision that it will be applicable on the preliminary test too. 39. Upon perusal of the original file, we further found that on 27.04.2021, ‘the BPSC took the decision without incorporating any reason in deviating from the advertisement. 40. The aforesaid fact clearly show that prior to 27.04.2021, ‘the BPSC’ was exactly in line with the advertisement no. 01/2020 which was issued on 06.02.2020 and spoke about the criteria to be applied only with respect to those candidates who will qualify for the interview from the mains examination. It was certainly not meant for the preliminary test examination. Why and under what circumstances, ‘the BPSC’ decided to change the goalpost that too after the preliminary test result was declared on 27.04.2021, there was no answer to it, at least in the original file. 41. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that once the 2007 resolution was there, it will be presumed that the candidates will have the knowledge on its applicability on the preliminary exam, the same has to be rejected on three counts:— (i) there was no occasion for the candidate to presume in view of the clear statement made in the advertisement that it will be applicable with respect to mains examination candidates for being selected for interview; (ii) in view of advertisement being silent on its applicability on the preliminary test examinees, the candidates had every reason to presume that ten times of vacancy will qualify for mains examination; (iii) if the candidates were to presume about the 2017 resolution applicability, there was no occasion for the ‘the BPSC’ to hastily take decision on 27.04.2021. 42. 42. So far as the case cited by the learned Senior counsel [ 2018 (4) PLJR 1012 (supra)] is concerned; in that case the challenge was to the introduction of new criteria of minimum cut-off marks during interview and the contention before the Court was that once the selection committee came to know about the marks of the appellants by prescribing minimum cut-off marks, they wanted to eliminate the appellants therein. The Court in the said case held that it was a decision in respect of all those who faced the interview and were otherwise eligible. It does not reflect any mala fide on the part of the selecting body. 43. The aforesaid decision, in our view, is not applicable to the present case. Here the rights of the candidate has been curtailed by not announcing the result of 5530 candidates by limiting it to 3995. Further rights have occurred in terms of the clauses narrated in the advertisement and the same cannot be tinkered or side tracked by ‘the BPSC’ in the form of clarificatory decision and such decision is after announcement of Preliminary Examination result. Alteration of clauses in the advertisement may be with ulterior motive. 44. On the other hand, it would be proper for this Court to bring on record the order and judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others reported in (2020) 20 SCC 209 . The Supreme Court in paragraph-6 of the judgment recorded that :— “6. On an application given under RTI asking for a copy of the criteria, it was only on 17.06.2010 the criteria was supplied. The writ petitioners further pleaded that authorities while making selection neither adopted any rational criteria nor selected the candidates on the basis of merit. The criteria was changed from time to time in order to select some favorites. Entire selection appears to be a fraud played upon the general public. 25 marks were mentioned for viva voce but when the result was finalised the candidates were awarded marks more than 25 marks. Para 51 of WP No. 15656 of 2010 enumerated the main points involved in the writ petition. “51. That the main law points involved in the writ petition are : (i) Whether the respondent authorities have adopted pick and choose policy while selecting the private respondents? Para 51 of WP No. 15656 of 2010 enumerated the main points involved in the writ petition. “51. That the main law points involved in the writ petition are : (i) Whether the respondent authorities have adopted pick and choose policy while selecting the private respondents? (ii) Whether the marks allocated for the interview as per the advertisement could be changed subsequently after the commencement of the selection procedure at the whims of the respondent-authorites? (iii) Whether any rationale criteria was adopted by the respondent authorities while awarding the marks for the viva voce? (iv) Whether the marks for the viva voce were required to be bifurcated under various heads? (v) Whether the persons who did not possess even the requisite educational qualification could be selected for the post? (vi) Whether the selection conducted by the respondent authorities is fair, transparent and sustainable in the eye of the law? (vii) Whether while making the selection Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated? (viii) Whether the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eye of the law? (ix) Whether the petitioners should be allowed to suffer for no fault on their part especially when the petitioners possess better academic record as compared to the selected candidates?” 45. It is further important to incorporate para 44 of the said judgment which read as follows :— 44. One more judgment of this Court which supports the view taken by the High Court is Bishnu Biswas Vs. Union of India. An advertisement was published calling applications for appointment to the post of Group -D staff. The Recruitment Rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks. After holding written examination notice was issued calling the successful candidates for interview. Although such interview was not part of the recruitment process, a select list was published which was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal returned a finding that the manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. This Court laid down the following in paras 19 and 20. “19. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. This Court laid down the following in paras 19 and 20. “19. In the present case, the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while a large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The fact that today the so-called selected candidates are not in employment, is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scrapped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than six years ago. 20. Thus, in the facts of this case the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference. In view of the above, the appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs”. 46. The Apex court further held in paragraph nos. 68 and 69 which read as under:— ‘’68. The malice in law has been dealt as “something done without lawful excuse”. The malice in law is also mala fide exercise of power, exercise of statutory power for purpose foreign to those for which it is in law intended. In the present case, the power to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection was entrusted on the Commission to further the object of selection on merit to fill up the post in the State in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the power to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection was entrusted on the Commission to further the object of selection on merit to fill up the post in the State in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously affected the merit selection as we have found above, the allegations which have been made in the writ petition against the commission in conducting the selection are allegations of malice in law and not malice in fact. 69. The High Court had summoned the original records of the Commission including the marks awarded to the candidates both on basic qualification as well as essential qualification as well as viva voce. The observations, which have been made by the Division Bench in paras 34 and 36 were inferences drawn by the High Court based on pattern of the marks allocated to some of the selected candidates and non-selected candidates. The observation of the High Court that (Vijay Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Kumar reported in 2013 SCC) “36…. It cannot be a mere co-incidence that 90 % of the meritorious candidates in academics performed so “poorly” in viva voce that they could not secure even 10 marks out of the 30 marks or that the brilliance got configurated only in the average candidates possessing bare eligibility.” 47. The Hon’ble Apex Court lastly gave direction as follows in paragraph 81:— “81. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions : 81.1. The commission shall conclude the entire selection process initiated by Advertisement No. 6 of 2006 as per criterion notified on 28.12.2006 i.e holding objective type written test of 200 marks and viva voce of 25 marks. All the applicants who had submitted applications in response to the above advertisement including those who were selected shall be permitted to participate in the fresh selection as directed. 81.2 The candidates who have been selected and have worked on the post of PTI shall not be asked to refund any of the salary and other benefits received by them as against their working on the posts. No refund shall also be asked from those candidates who after their selection worked and retired from service. 81.2 The candidates who have been selected and have worked on the post of PTI shall not be asked to refund any of the salary and other benefits received by them as against their working on the posts. No refund shall also be asked from those candidates who after their selection worked and retired from service. 81.3 The entire process be completed by the Commission within a period of five months from the date the Commission starts working after the present lockdown is over, which was the time fixed by the learned Single Judge for completing the process. 81.4 The costs imposed by the Division Bench in para 54 of the judgment of the High Court are deleted except the costs imposed on the Commission”. 48. As stated above, we also perused the concerned file by which ‘the BPSC’ had taken the decision. After going through the file, we found that on the day i.e. on 27.04.2021, after the result was published, ‘the BPSC’ took up the matter at 1:00 P.M. on the said day and without any deliberation or assigning any reason for taking the said decision held that the 2007 resolution will be applicable for the selection of the preliminary test examination candidates to the mains examination. 49. This decision taken hastily without incorporating any reason at 1:00 P.M., when the result had already been prepared and published defies logic. 50. Thus our answers to the questions formulated are as follows:— (i) ‘the BPSC’ by clearly stipulating in the advertisement no. 01/2020 about its applicability on the main examinee qualifying for the interview had excluded its applicability on the preliminary test candidates and as such it cannot be made applicable on the said test also; (ii) ‘the BPSC’ further by stipulating applicability of 16.07.2007 resolution on the mains examination for selecting candidates for interview had restricted itself accordingly; (iii) it failed to publish/inform candidates about its applicability on the preliminary test exam from the date of advertisement till the publication of result; (iv) ‘the BPSC’ cannot be allowed to turn around and announce applicability of 16.07.2007 resolution on the preliminary test examinees after the result was published; (v) the result published by ‘the BPSC” as such is/was unfair and unsustainable in law. 51. 51. Thus in our considered view, having defined the criteria in the advertisement for the selection of the candidates from the mains examination for the interview in line with 2007 resolution and in absence of any clarification issued till the examination held a year later, ‘the BPSC’ cannot be allowed to apply it on preliminary test examination. 52. We further hold that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in directing ‘the BPSC’ to publish the revised result of the preliminary test of successful candidates without invoking of resolution no 2374 dated 16.07.2007 issued by ‘the Department’. The said order dated 23.08.2021 by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and need no interference. 53. We were told by the learned Senior Counsel for ‘the BPSC that due to pendency of this appeal, no further development has taken place inasmuch as ‘the BPSC’ has not conducted mains examination. Due to the decision taken by ‘the BPSC’ to change the goalpost, the candidates who applied pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2020 in February, 2020 have suffered a lot. It is high time that ‘the BPSC’ take immediate steps and publish the revised results of the successful candidates from the preliminary test examination for the mains examination without applying the 2007 resolution and further take steps to complete the process without any further delay and make all necessary endeavour to complete the process of selection within a period of six months. 54. The present appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.