BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 31-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
v. 
MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 1996. 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Recruitment process-Bihar Public Service 
Commission-Validity of decision, to have centralised valuation of the 
answer books-Decision adopted by the majority of the members present-
Subsequently on the circulation note, majority of members felt that matter 
C of centralised valuation may be reconsidered, but no resolution passed to 
rescind the same-Held, decision not invalid. 
Administrative Law-Public Service Commission-Appointment of 
examiners, on the basis of panel approved by committee constituted in 
accordance with rule-Held, not essential that every decision be taken by 
D the entire body of members-Hence, appoiniment not illegal.-Bihar Public 
Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1993. 
Before the 37th Combined Competitive Examination the 
Commission {CCEC), Chairman of the Bihar Public Service 
E Commission decided to introduce a system of centralised evaluation 
of answer books. The centralised evaluation of 37th CCEC was 
challenged in a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court on the 
ground that the decision to change the mode of evaluation was taken 
by the Chairman alone, which could only be taken by the Commission. 
But the High Court did not interfere with the result of 37th CCEC as 
F the Commission had adopted this as a matter of conduct of 
examination and observed that the reasons cited for introducing the 
system of centralised evaluation were indeed good and valid and one 
could not find any fault with them. Sanjay Kumar v. BPSC {1994) 2 
PL.JR 414. 
G 
In the commission meeting on 16.8.1993, it was decided that the 
question setters/moderators/examiners should be from outside the 
State and of the rank of Professor/Reader and whose name figure 
inthe UGC Handbook or Handbook of Association of the University 
Teachers. Only in case of non-availability they should be replaced 
H from the persons from Bihar but those should be figured in the 
280 
BIHAR PUBLIC 5ERYICE COM MN. v. M. KR. PANDEY 
281 
handbooks. The panel made thereof should be put up before the A 
Commission for approval. In the next Commission meeting on 
18.9.1993, which was attended by the Chairman and the six members 
of the Commission, the said Resolution was adopted, the Chairman 
and four members voted in favour of the Resolution but two members 
expressed their dissent. 
Bihar Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,1993 was 
also adopted by majority in the Commission meeting on 3.11.1993. 
In the Procedure a specific provision was made for the appointment 
of question setters/moderators/examiners under clauses (viii) and (ix) 
B 
of Rule 4. Subsequently, when the note regarding appointment of 
examiners was circulated, majority of the members felt that the matter C 
may be reconsidered by the Full Commission. 
The Chairman had constituted a two members committee for 
the 38th CCEC. The committee with the Chairman approved the 
panel of examiners/head. examiners for the evaluation of answer books. 
This evaluation was conducted in the Commission premises and the D 
result was declared on 27.4.1994. Two writ petitions were filed, 
challenging the decision of the Commission for having centralised 
evaluation, as well as the appointment of examiners for such 
evaluation. The High Court by its impugned judgement allowed the 
writ petitions on the grounds that: (i) the process of taking the decision E 
to hold centralised evaluation was bad and (ii) the appointment of 
examiners was not made in accordance with the decision taken by the 
Commission of 16.8.1993 and 18.9.1993. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The H.igh Court observed in the writ petition 'Sanjay 
Kumar v. BPSC' that the reason cited for introducing the system of 
centralised evaluation of answer books were good and valid and one 
could not find any fault with them hut such a decision should have 
been taken by the Commission. The Commission, thereafter, G 
considered the matter in its meeting on 16.8.1993. It was also decided 
in the meeting that the question setter/moderators/examiners should 
be of Professor/Reader rank and from outside the State. In the 
Commission meeting on 18.9.1993, the Resolution was adopted, 
Chairman and four members voted in favour of the resoslution and 
two members expressed their dissent. But that does not affect the H 
282 
SUPREME COURT 

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