BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 22-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .TJ.] 
Service Law-Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board-Con-
ducted examination and recommended candidates-Selection board 
abolished-Irregularities and illegalities in conducting examination-
C Respondent's name included in select list-Juniors Appointed-High Court 
issued mandamus requiring appointment of respondent-Held, High Court 
committed gross error of law in issuing the mandamus-Board had no juris-
diction in recommending candidates-Appointment to respondent set-aside. 
The Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board conducted 
D examination and recommended names of candidates. The Government of 
Bihar issued a resolution deciding to abolish the selection board and the 
job of selection board was entrustert to Bihar Pnblic Service Commission. 
The respondent whose name was included in the list sent blthe Board filed 
a writ petition in the High Court alleging that persons jnnior to him were 
E appointed. The High Court directed the public service commission to 
consider the case of respondent for appointment. Meanwhile in another 
proceeding the Patna High Court appointed Shri S.N. Biswas to inquire 
into the irregularities committed by the Board in conducting the examina-
tion. The Enquiry report indicated gross irregularities committed by the 
F 
selection board in conducting tests. The High Conrt directed the State to 
cancel the result of the examination and conduct fresh examination for 
filling up the vacancies. Petition of the respondent was allowed on the 
gronnd that junior persons had been appointed. Against the said order the 
present ·appeal has been preferred. 
G 
The contention of the appell.mt was that giving appointment to the 
respondent would amount to legalising and accepting the gross ir-
regularities and illegalities committed by the Board. It was further con-
tended that the Board had no jurisdiction to sent fresh recommendation 
as it had already been abolished. 
H 
On the other hand the contention of the respondent was that when 
144 
-
BIHARPUBLICSERVICECOMN. v. STATE 
145 
persons junior to him in the selection list were appointed and the State's A 
special leave petition against the similar order has been dismissed by 
the court, the present appeal should also be dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The court did not entertain a special leave petition of 
State of Bihar as the report of Biswas Committee had not been brought 
to the notice of the Court and the Court was aware of the gross 
irregularities and illegalities committed by the subordinate service selec-
tion board. Had the irregularities and illegalities have been brought 
before the Court, the Court would have entertained the matter and 
cancelled the lists altogether. [149-E-F] 
B 
c 
2. The High Court committed gross error of law in issuing the man-
damus requiring the Public Service Commission and the State to give 
appointment to the respondent even after going thorough the Biswas Com-
D 
mittee Report which has indicated the gross irregularities and illegalities 
committed by the Service Selection Board in the matter of holding examina-
tion and drawing list of successful candidates. (149-G-H] 
3. The Board having been abolished by the Government had no 
further jurisdiction to publish a revised list and in recommending 
candidates including the respondent. The list containing respondent's 
name is a list wholly without jurisdiction and the persons recommended 
thereunder including the respondent had no enforceable right for which 
a mandamus could be issued by the High Court. [149-H; 150-A-B] 
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission did not act upon the list 
prepared by the State Service Selection Board nor did it recommend any 
names for different posts in class - II from the list. But the appointments 
already made out of the list are not annulled. [150-B-D] 
5. The appointment of the respondent No. 5 is set aside. If the 
respondent No 5 makes fresh application to the Bihar Public Service 
Commission pursuant to any advertisement and is found to be over-aged 
then the period which has been spent in pursuing the present litigation 
should be excluded by the public service commission. (150-F] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14753 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.