In Pappu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), the petitioners submitted that the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) published an advertisement on September 23, 2024 for the conduct of 70th Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination. The petitioners are were the candidates for the preliminary examination conducted by the BPSC on December 13, 2024. It was submitted that examination was conducted in approximately 912 centers across the State of Bihar. At Bapu Pariksha Parisar, Patna, approximately 12,000 candidates were present. It was found that the question the paper had been leaked and several candidates were not given the question papers and the questions papers were also circulated on social media X on December 13, 2024 at about 1.6 pm.
The petitioners have submitted that it is clear that the question papers were leaked. The irregularities are not only confined to the Bapu Pariksha Parisar but also incurred at about 28 different examination centers which was reported by the candidates who appeared on those examination centers. It was also submitted that just one day prior to the examination, the BPSC changed the center of candidates which also indicate that the BPSC does not have the sufficient means to conduct such a mass level examination. On the ground that some irregularities were found in Bapu Pariksha Parisar, cancelled the examination of that center and reexamination was conducted on January 4, 2025 which is also not permissible. It was also found that at sme of the Examination Centers, the jammer were also not functioning throughout the examination duration. It was found that procedure, as laid down in the SOP was also not followed by the BPSC. According to the BPSC's press note and the provisional answer key of the examination, which was conducted on January 4, 2025 at Bapu Pariksha Parisar, questions No 13, 79 and 91 of Set I have been deleted, therefore, the candidates, who appeared on January 4, 2025 will be beneficial for some additional marks to the candidates but this benefit will not be provided to the candidates who appeared on December 13, 2024 as according to the provisional answer key, none of the question of the examination dated December 13, 2024 has been deleted.
P K Shahi, Advocate General appearing for the State of Bihar opposed the argument raised by the senior counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that on this issue, one PIL has also been filed by the person/persons, therefore, it would be appropriate to hear the present matter by the same Bench who will hear the said PIL.
Lalit Kishore, senior counsel none of the candidates who appeared in the examination on the centers, which are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition, have made any complaint to the Commission regarding any irregularities nor any of them have filed any affidavit in support of these facts. He also submitted that as per the video recording, it was found that on 13.12.2024 at Babu Pariksha Parisar at about 1.5 pm, one candidate fled away with the question paper and some of the questions which have been mentioned in the social media, i e, X was posted at 1.6 pm. Therefore, the allegation of paper leak, as made by the petitioners, is baseless.
Y. V. Giri, senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that "till the decision of this case, the respondent-Commission (BPSC) be directed not to publish the result of preliminary test conducted by it on 13.12.2024 and 04.01.2025." He relied on four decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of
1. UP Public Service Commission vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit & Others 2003) 12 SCC 701,
2. Joginder Pal & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644,
3.Nidhi Kaim & Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (2017) 4 SCC 1 and
4. State of Punjab & Others vs. Manjit Singh & Others, (2003) 11 SCC 559.
In UPPSC case, the Court had directed that the merit list prepared by the UP Public Service Commission shall prevail in the case of all the examinations in question.
In Joginder Pal case, the appeals were partly allowed to a limited extent.
The Nidhi Kaim case dealt with orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (referred to as, ‘Vyapam’), cancelling the results of the appellants, of their professional MBBS course, on the ground that the appellants had gained admission to the course, by resorting to unfair means, during the Pre-Medical Test. These orders were passed, with reference to candidates, who had been admitted to the above course, during the years 2008 to 2012. A challenge to the orders of cancellation, was raised by the appellants. The 3-judge bench concluded that "it would not be proper to legitimize the admission of the appellants, to the MBBS course".
In the State of Punjab case, the Court imposed costs "to be borne by the appellant Punjab Public Service Commission. It concluded:"the stand of the appellant Commission in this case that, it being an independent body, is not subservient to any authority or the State Government, hence it is competent for it to lay down minimum efficiency standards including in the matters which may fall within the purview of Article 335 of the Constitution, is erroneous."
In his order dated January 16, 2025, Justice Arvind Singh Chandel of Patna High Court has directed the respondents-the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, BPSC through its Secretary, Secretary, BPSC, and Examination Controller, BPSC to file detailed parawise counter affidavit on or before 30th of January, 2025. The order reads:"It is made clear that any result of the preliminary examination, conducted by the Commission, will be the subject matter of the final outcome of this petition." The petition is listed for further consideration on January 31, 2025.
Also read: URL of Asset Declaration of BPSC office bearers, officials non-functional
No comments:
Post a Comment