LexBIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. versus VINOY KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANI:i ANR. A v. VINOY KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. AUGUST 4, 2003. [M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B Service Law: Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951-Rule 15A-Recruitment-Examination- C Commission publishing result of successful candidates-Interview for the ~ivil posts-Candidate giving option-Subsequently, Commission issuing showca'use notice to the candidate for adopting unfair means in the paper-Commission cancelling the paper and debarring the candidate from the examination-Writ petition-Single Judge of High Court dismissing the same however, Division D Bench quashing the order of the Commission-On appeal, held: Commission is entitled to initiate action against the candidate for adopting unfair means in the examination and debarring him from the examination-Hence no infirm'ity in the action taken by the Commission and order of Division Bench set asi#e. Appellant-Commission invited applications for the Competitive E Exam for filling up various Civil Posts. Respondent No.1 appeared in the examination and was declared successful. Appellant-Commission then announced and published the result of the successful candidates. Respondent No.I appeared in the interview and gave his option for tlie post. Thereafter, appellant-Commission issued show cause notice fo F respondent No. I for adopting unfair means in the examination. Respondent No.1 gave reply. Appellant-Commission considered the reply and cancelled the answer-sheet and debarred respondent No.1 from the examination. He filed a writ petition. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition. However, Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and quashed the order of the Commission. Hence the present G appeal. Appellants contended that interpretation put by the Division Bench will have devastating effect if it is held that the Commission has no power to take action against a candidate who had adopted unfair means in the 215 H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A examination, after the conclusion of the examination or beyond the premises of the examination hall; that the power of the Commission to conduct examinations is conferred under the Constitution and therefore, the power is not controlled by the limitations imposed, if any, by any statutory provisions; that the Division Bench also failed to appreciate that B the Single Judge compared the signatures of the invigilator on the answer- sheet of the respondent No.1 and others, and the difference in the signature of the invigilator was so glaring that he concluded that the present answer- books were not at all written in the examination centre and this answer- book has been subsequently substituted. for the one written in the · examination centre and in that event, there would be no question of C invigilator's noticing the unfair means at the time of using the same in the examination hall; and that it was not the case ofrespondent No.I that the Division Bench had not undertaken the exercise of perusal of the records by themselves as did by the Single Judge. Respondent No.I contended that the lapse of over two years from D the date of examination in declaring the result is not consistent with the statement that any complaint was made or was pending against the respondent; that on receipt of the charge-sheet, respondent No.I ·filed an application before the.Commission for allowing him to see certain records and to furnish him specimen signatures of invigilator but the access to these E documents was denied and no specimen signatures were furnished; that the interpretation by the Division Bench of High Court that the Commission has no power to take action against a candidate who had committed unfair means in the examination after conclusion of examination or beyond premises of the examination hall is consistent with the rules; that respondent No.1 was never charged for adopting unfair F means; that two years after the examination _result was published showing respondent No.I was a successful candidate, thus the Commission was not justified in rejecting the answer papers; and that the power under Article 226 is of judicial review and the High Court can only examine the procedural correctness and cannot go into the merits of the controversy G like an appellate authority. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The State Public Serv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.