Bihar Judicial Services Exam 2020 | Plea Moved In High Court Challenges Select List, Seeks Holding Of Main Exam Afresh

A Writ Petition has been moved before the Patna High Court seeking to quash the select list (issued in October 2022) and the main examination results (released in February 2021) of the 31st Bihar Judicial Services Examination 2020 declared by the Bihar Public Service Commission.

The plea also seeks a direction to the BPSC to conduct the mains examination afresh and declare the results thereof in strict adherence to Rule 15(b) of Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955 and clause 4(1)(a) of the advertisement dated March 9, 2020, and thereafter, conduct a fresh interview and declare and publish a fresh select list.

A total of 19 Candidates who appeared for the BJSE 2020 and faced interview but failed to secure a place in the final select list have moved the instant plea after Select List was published by the BPSC wherein minimum qualifying marks/cut-offs were also specified. The candidates have moved to the High Court through Advocates Amrit Kumar and SN Kumar.

The plea has been moved on the ground that the BPSC released the Main results of the BJSE 2020 in contravention of Rule 15(b) of 1955 Rules, and consequently, called candidates for the interview who were prima facie not eligible for the interview as per Rule 17 of 1955 Rules and corollary declared the final select list which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

[NOTE: Rule 15(b) mandates that the maximum difference of mains examination cut-off/minimum qualifying marks shall be 5% between the unreserved (General) category and reserved Category. Rule 17 mandates that only those candidates shall be called for interview/viva-voce who have qualified for the examination according to Rule 15(b).]

Essentially, clause 4(a)(2) of the notification of the BJSE 2020 stated that the minimum qualifying marks for the main examination for all reserved category candidates including (women and orthopedically disabled category) candidates shall be relaxed by 5% marks in each theory paper and by 5% lower marks in aggregate than the general category candidates. This clause was inserted as per the mandate of Rule 15(b) of the 1955 Rules.

However, it is the case of the petitioners that despite the mandate of Rule 15(b) to relax the minimum qualifying marks of reserved category candidates (EWS, BC, EBC, SC) to up to only 5%, the BPSC relaxed the said minimum qualification to up to 12% and called even those people to face the interview who were not eligible for the same as they had secured less than the marks prescribed as the qualifying marks under Rule15(b).

"...BPSC in disregard and violation of the aforesaid statutory Rules, arbitrarily set the Mains examination minimum qualifying marks/cut-off marks 457 for Unreserved Category, 456-Unreserved (Female), 414-BC, 364-SC, 356-SC (Female), 378-ST, 418-EWS, 405- EWS (Female), 392-EBC, 382-EBC(Female), 409-Disabled (OH) which falls beyond the 5% relaxation of marks in mains. By non-application of the aforesaid 5% percent Rule, BPSC deviated from the terms of the advertisement and from the aforesaid Rules which resulted in the ineligible candidates to face Interview who in fact were not even qualified to appear in the interview if Rule 15(b) and Rule 17 were complied with...," the plea avers.

"Like some of the students who got selected are not even able to score 25% marks in an individual subject but they were called for an interview and awarded 80 marks in the interview although that candidate only scored 36 marks out of 150 marks in Evidence and Procedure law which a compulsory paper and essential for the functioning of the court," the plea alleges.

The petitioners have also alleged that the interview/viva voce of the BJSE 2020 was also not conducted in a scientific manner as laid down in the judgments by the Apex Court.

In fact, the petitioners have alleged that they were not given more than 5-7 minutes for the interview even when the Supreme Court says that the interview should take anything between 25 and 30 minutes for each candidate in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate.

"It cannot be a mere coincidence that in these 5-6 minutes some candidates were awarded 75-80 % marks in the interview and some of them were awarded "disastrously low percentage of marks in viva voce ranging rock bottom 10- 34 marks although they have performed very well in the written exam and some of them had even scored 70-80 more marks than the final merit (written +interview). How could such brilliant candidates who have done so well in the written examination performed so poorly in the viva voce test that they could not be found suitable for even providing the minimum qualifying marks in the interview 35 marks out of 100 marks or that the brilliance got configurated only in the average candidates possessing bare eligibility," the plea adds.

In this regard, the plea also seeks a declaration of Rule 15 (c) of the 1955 rules providing for minimum qualifying criteria of 35% in interviews as discriminatory and ultra-virus to Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.