Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.@mdash1. The 11 petitioners in the present writ application want a direction upon the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commission'') for re-evaluation of answer- sheets of all candidates on the basis of correct answers after excluding the incorrect questions. They also want quashing of entire declaration of results and a fresh exercise to be carried out as per the post advertised. The post in question is for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector from the pool of Rajasva Karmachari.
2. An advertisement was issued by the Commission on the basis of requisition sent by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. The total post indicated therein was 127. The eligibility etc. required for participation in the examination has been indicated in the advertisement contained in Annexure- 1.
3. Petitioners sat for the examination. The results have been published as per Annexure- 4 but the name of these petitioners does not figure in the said list of successful candidates. It is endeavor of these petitioners to declare the said selection and declaration of results to be vitiated for reasons indicated by them in the writ application.
4. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel representing the petitioner is that 7 answers in the first paper and 7 answers in the second paper are incorrect answers. The relevant questions and the serial number have been indicated in paragraph 15 of the writ application. If these incorrect answers are removed and re-evaluation is done then the entire result will change.
5. Additional limb of argument is that even those persons, who were not confirmed in their service after 10 years, were allowed to participate and sit in the examination, which was contrary to the advertisement. They also plead that there was no mention of a minimum cut-off marks in the advertisement but the Commission subsequently decided to apply or introduce the concept of minimum cut-off marks in this limited competitive examination.
6. The stand of the State is that the requisition for selection has been sent in terms of the available vacancy as well as the service rules governing appointment of the Circle Inspectors. They deny that any person, who was ineligible, was recommended. Seven candidates out of the 100 recommended candidates were identified to have not completed 10 years of service and they were weeded out. They have gone by the recommendations made by the Commission and appointments have come to be made.
7. The Commission has justified the recommendation. So far as minimum cut-off marks is concerned, they bring on record a resolution of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 16.7.2007, which applies across the board for any examination conducted by either Bihar Public Service Commission or the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. The said resolution, which has been in vogue and has been applied in such examination, has been annexed as Annexure- R/1. Clause (7) of the said resolution indicates as to what should be the minimum qualifying marks under various categories of candidate. Since such a clause is of significance in the present writ application, it is reproduced herein below :
8. A reading of the above quoted provision does lay down the requirement of minimum cut-off marks or eligibility and there is an object and purpose behind the same. The object and purpose is to maintain the minimum of standards in selection on the post sought to be filled up by competitive examination. There is a public purpose behind maintaining the minimum qualifying marks to maintain the standards in service.
9. To further buttress the position that all the petitioners are ineligible or are disqualified from consideration and that is why a hue and cry is being raised against the selection on one ground or the other would be evident from the position indicated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. Since the Commission has, in a tabular form, reproduced the status of these petitioners, which explains their status, the said position is reproduced as part of this order:--
10. As for the stand of the petitioners with regard to wrong answers in the two papers, the Commission takes a stand that an advertisement or notice was made by the Commission inviting objections on the uploaded questions and model answers. On the basis of objections so received and collated, an expert body sat down, deliberated and on their recommendation the final declaration of result was published. Since only 100 candidates made the grade, the Commission recommended the qualified candidates for appointment to the State Government.
11. The Court after looking at the materials, the circular contained in Annexure- R/1 as well as the performance of the petitioners in the examination, either paper 1 or paper 2, is satisfied that it is a desperate measure on the part of the petitioners to get a foothold and an opening on the post of a Circle Inspector by alleging one thing or the other against the respondent Commission''s recommendation, which have no substance.
12. The minimum cut-off marks has been in vogue and that circular cannot be wished away especially since that circular has been applied for such competitive examination and merely because it was not indicated in the advertisement it does not mean that it is not binding. In fact, applying minimum cut-off marks is a mechanism to eliminate the dead wood or otherwise substandard candidates, who may get recommended merely on the basis of vacancy position and mere participation in examination.
13. Since these are limited competitive examination trying to give an avenue of promotion to the next higher post of responsibility, the argument against the minimum cut-off marks made at behest of the petitioners is required to be negated. Since all these petitioners have failed to get the minimum qualifying marks in one paper or the other, their overall performance is of no avail.
14. In every public examination at times some discrepancies do creep in or at least a debate or argument as to the correct answer is surely raised. But then the Commission has adequately taken remedial measure for it by publishing the model questions and answers on the website inviting objections and on the recommendation of the expert body, an uniform yardstick has been adopted for evaluation and declaration of results. After this exercise has been done, no candidate can be permitted to nit-pick on the correctness or otherwise of questions and answers after having participated and failed to succeed in the competitive examination. In fact, a plethora of decisions are in place against the petitioners that candidates, who participate and fail as per rule of the Commission, cannot turn around and challenge the same merely because they have failed to make it to the charmed circle.
15. The Court finds no infirmity in the recommendation or the conduct of examination by the Staff Selection Commission for filling up the post on a limited competitive examination. The writ application, therefore, is required to be dismissed and is dismissed.
