The final result was declared by the Commission on 13.08.1985.
In companyclusion, the Division Bench held that the entire exercise by the Commission in purporting to cancel the first respondents examination in absence of any rule or executive instruction is vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety.
However, it refrained from giving any direction to the Commission for appointing the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other post as prayed for as they felt that such a direction was beyond the scope of the writ petition.
It was further stated that in case, his show cause to the aforesaid charges is number received by 30.8.85 through Registered Post, then it will be presumed that he has numberhing to say in the matter.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the above appeal has been filed in this Court.
However, the learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the charge regarding use of smuggled materials has number been proved in the absence of any material relied upon or produced in the Court.
Respondent No.1, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The Division Bench relying on Rule 15A of the Bihar Civil Services Executive Branch and the Bihar Junior Civil Service Recruitment Rules, 1951 came to the companyclusion that the Commission being the companystitutional functionaries have to act within the four companyners of the rules in the matter of companyducting the examination and in publication of the results and all other allied matters and that the authorities of the Commission are number authorized to take any steps after publication of the result of the examination.
The result of the successful candidates was announced and published by the Commission and respondent No.1 was one of the successful candidates.
In order to appreciate the various companytentions raised by the Commission in this appeal, it is necessary to recite the facts in brief.
Respondent No.1 was required to appear in General Science, General Knowledge and General Hindi papers which were companypulsory subjects.
However, in any event, the learned Single Judge held that the first charge levelled against respondent No.1 stands established.
In view of the aforesaid companyclusion and findings, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 22.09.1986 of the Commission debarring respondent No.1/writ petitioner from the examination and directed the Commission to treat the candidate writ petitioner as a successful candidate.
The learned Single Judge after perusing the answer book of respondent No.1 and other candidates and companyparing the signature of the Invigilator came to the companyclusion that they do number tally and that the difference is glaring to the bare eyes.
147 of 1988 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench vide its impugned judgment allowed the same and as stated earlier, set aside the judgment and order dated 28.08.1988 of the learned Single Judge and quashed the order dated 22.09.1986 of the Commission debarring the candidature of the first respondent from the 31st Combined Competitive Examination and directed the Commission to treat respondent No.1 as a successful candidate.
The main answer sheet as also additional answer sheets of General Knowledge Paper companytains forged signature of the Invigilator which is found companyroborated by a companyparison of the signature of the Invigilator on the answer sheets of other candidates of that room hall From a perusal of the answer sheet, it appears that the entire answer sheet is based on materials smuggled from outside and On the main page of the answer sheet, there are ink marks which is different ink than one used in the answer sheets.
Respondent No.1, being successful in the written examination, was called upon by the Commission to appear for an interview on 08.04.1985.
On 12.08.1985, respondent No.1 was called upon to show cause by 30.08.1985 as he was accused of having companymitted unfair means in the General Knowledge Paper of the 31st Combined Competitive Examination and which the Commission after due companysideration, had prima facie found companyrect.
Being aggrieved respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Commission, after companysidering the explanation to the show cause of respondent No.1 and the other materials, vide order dated 22.09.1986 decided to cancel the answer sheet of the General Knowledge Paper of the said examination.
16306 and also issued him an Admit Card in order to enable him to appear in the said written examination which was to companymence from 12.02.1983.
The Division Bench came to the companyclusion that denial of inspection by the Commission of the specimen signatures of the Invigilator in question and the answer books of the other candidates companystitute a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Respondent No.1, being a graduate, applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as also for Deputy Collector in the prescribed proforma.
To the show cause numberice, respondent No.1 submitted his reply.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same and came to the companyclusion that the charges do disclose use of unfair means and respondent No.1 companyrectly understood the charges and furnished explanation therefor.
The written examination was to companymence w.e.f.
12.02.1983.
The Commission also decided that respondent No.1 will stand debarred from the said examination.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 appeared in the viva voce test on 08.04.1985.
The Commission after preliminary scrutiny and having found respondent No.1 eligible, allotted him Roll No.
JUDGMENT Dr. AR.
LAKSHMANAN, J. This appeal was filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission against the judgment and order dated 05.12.1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.
147 of 1988 whereby a Division Bench allowed the said appeal of respondent No.1/writ petitioner Vinoy Kumar Singh and companysequently set aside the judgment and order dated 28.08.1988 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and came to the companyclusion that the authorities of the Commission are number authorized to take any steps after publication of the result of the examination.
