BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus ARUN KUMAR & ORS. on 6 May 2020

1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent oftheir counsel.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPANo. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC

H

ANo. 3740/2013), LPA No. 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) andLPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court,dated 24.06.2015.

3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection CommissionB(hereafter “BSSC”) and the other set (referred to as “the aggrievedparty appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellantsbefore the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals,which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge.The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, withconsequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of theCGraduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with thedirections of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questionsand answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellantswere not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selectedin terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown asDnot qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of theCourt by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Benchwere by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned thejudgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect ofall questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected inthe final results declared.E

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2010, the BSSCissued an advertisement calling for applications for selection of candidatesto 1569 vacancies in Class III posts, in various departments of theGovernment of Bihar. Examinations were conducted; on 12.04.2012,results of the preliminary examination were declared; this became theFsubject matter of challenge before the Patna High Court. The High Court,after calling for evaluation of the questions and the results published byexperts, directed fresh declaration of results. Resultantly, the freshdeclaration of results was made on 29.12.2012. 27,289 candidatesqualified in the examination. Meanwhile the number of vacanciesGincreased to 3285 (from the original number of 1569). On 27.10.2013,the main written examination (for selection), as part of the second phase,was held; those who had been declared successful in the preliminaryexamination were allowed to compete. On 28.01.2013, the model answersto the main examinations were published; the BSSC elicited commentsand objections to the model answers.H

5. The BSSC constituted a committee of experts to examine theobjections; their report suggested changes with respect to 13 questions.The acceptance of the report meant consequential revision of the result.This led to the filing of five writ petitions, before the Patna High Court.The results declared by the BSSC were impugned on diverse grounds,including that the original number of vacancies could not have beenincreased; that the increase in the number of candidates was arbitraryand that the final results were based on answers to various questions,which were wrong.

6. The single judge, after considering the contentions of the partieson merits, held that the increase in the number of vacancies to beconsidered for selection and appointment beyond the initially advertisednumber, was valid and in consonance with the law declared by this court;it was further held that the increase in the number of candidates allowedto compete for the post (i.e. 27,289 instead of the original 16,425 declaredsuccessful in the preliminary test) was justified, despite that numberexceeding the ratio (of consideration of five candidates for one post)because of the revision in the results. The change in the result as aconsequence of the expert committee’s report adversely impacted 915candidates who had been previously declared successful in the result ofthe preliminary test declared on 12.04.2012. By an order of the PatnaHigh Court in Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.[1], it was held thatthese candidates should not be disturbed by the change in result. TheBSSC, therefore, retained these 915 candidates on the list of successfulcandidates. Further, the change in answers caused the inclusion of severalothers who now obtained the same marks as these 915 candidates. Thisresultant increase in the number of successful candidates from 16,425to 27,289 was held to be permissible by the single judge. After examiningthe merits of the answers accepted by the BSSC, the single judge wasof the opinion that question numbers 82, 147, 148 and 149 were incorrect;the writ petitions were allowed, with a direction to BSSC to re-evaluatethe answer sheets of the candidates after deleting the said four questions.

7. Two appeals were preferred against that decision of the singlejudge. It was contended that the BSSC had wrongly assessed questionnos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 and 149. By the impugnedjudgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeals. The operativedirections in the impugned judgment are extracted below:

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“22. Thus, the only change we find is with regard to questionNo. 69 where the correct answer is option (A). In respect ofquestion No. 98, the correct answer is option (D). The correctanswer to question No. 107 is not available and has to bedeleted. In respect of question No. 111, we hold that it shouldnot be deleted and the correct answer is option (C).

23. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment of thelearned Single Judge only to the extent of these four questionsin the manner indicated hereinabove.

24. Thus, the inevitable result would be, in order to ensurefairness of procedure of selection, the results which wererevised and published pursuant to orders of the learned SingleJudge would call for a further revision in respect of the fourquestions as noted in the preceding paragraphs but it wouldnot follow that as per the fresh revised results of persons whohad already been selected and appointed and have beenworking but who do not make the mark this time would bedisqualified and dismissed. We hold that this would be highlyiniquitous inasmuch as they are not guilty of any fraud,malpractice but are mere victims of mistake committed not bythem. We have already noted judgments of the Apex Court inthe cased Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Vikash Pratap Singh(supra) in these regards but again that does not end the matter.By change of answers of these four questions, as noted above,there may be some persons, who are now found to have madeto the final merit list but, were not selected earlier leavingthem out would be injustice. There would not be many suchpersons.

25. Having considered the matter, we would accordingly orderthat such persons who now come into the merit list wouldhave to be adjusted, if vacancies were there were (sic) orthere are vacancies available in cadre, for which examinationwere held. Their inter se seniority in the cadre to which theyare allotted would be determined by inter se merit position,irrespective of their date of appointment. We orderaccordingly. With these observations and directions, theseLetter Patent Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”

8. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29764-65/2015 are aggrieved by the impugned judgment; their complaint is thatthe Division Bench confined the relief in respect of only four wronganswers; according to them, there were other defective questions orwrong answers: they argue that question nos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111,124, 125, 148 and 149 should be deleted altogether (as against theinterference with respect to four question nos., i.e. 69, 98, 107 and 111).The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) 30109/2016, on theother hand, urge that answers to question nos. 61, 82, 119, 124, 125 and135 have to be corrected, and the revised merit list should be publishedon the basis of such corrected result. The BSSC, in its appeal arising outof SLP(C) Nos. 23202-04/2015, on the other hand, urges that after thejudgment of the learned single judge, appointments were made since thegrievance of the writ petitioners had been substantially mitigated. Itwas in the context of appeals preferred by private respondents (some ofwhom are before this Court) who found that their names were out ofzone of consideration, that the Division Bench delivered the impugnedjudgment.

9. It is submitted that the directions in the impugned judgment,which include those requiring the accommodation of candidates whowere to come in the merit list as against the vacancies available in thecadre without disturbing appointments already made, is violative of well-established and settled principles of service law. It is highlighted that ifthe impugned directions are to be complied with, there would be severalcomplications inasmuch as the recommendations for 3285 vacancieswere against 21 different categories of posts many of which requireadditional qualifications. This, it is urged would also include creation ofsupernumerary post.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court hadissued notice on 30.10.2015. In the meanwhile, on 28.09.2015 the BSSCwas asked to work out the judgment in terms of the directions containedto show the likely results.

11. The Court had on 25.09.2019 passed the following order:

“Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties, weare of the view that the Bihar Public Service Commissionshould appoint an Expert Committee consisting of threemembers in order to determine what is the correct answer to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe questions which are appended as part of this order. TheExpert Committee to be appointed within a period of two weeksfrom today. The Expert Committee will then submit its reportin a sealed cover to this Court within a period of four weeksfrom the date on which the Committee is formed.

BThe Expert Committee is left with the discretion to co-optpersons of their choice in assisting them.

Representations of parties to be submitted within a period oftwo weeks from today so that the Committee may considerthem as and when it is constituted.

CList after six weeks.”

12. The questions which were referred to the Committee ofExperts, extracted in a Tabular Form as part of the order of 25.09.2019is set out below:

S.No.QUESTIONSWITH FOUR OPTIONS

D

1.61. The Primary Product of Photosynthesis is:

(A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose 2.69. Which technique has been possible only after development of recombinant DNA Technology: (A) DNA Fingerprinting (B) Monoclonal antibody production (C) Fermentation (D) Vaccination E3.82. The largest beach in India is in (A) Kerala (B) Goa (C) Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal 4.98. 2 x (3+4) is equal to:(A) (3 x 4) +2 (B) (2 x 4) + 3 (C) (3 x 2) + 4 (D) (2 x 3) + ( 2 x 4) F5.107. Which term comes next in the series YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL?

(A)QGL (B) TOL (C)QNL (D)QOL 6.111. If dust is called air, air is called fire, fire is called water, water is called colour, colour is called rain and rain is called dust, then where do fish live?

BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

9. 125. Given the statements: All windows are doors and no door is wall.

B

13. The report of the Committee of four Experts - Dr. S.K.Srivastava, Professor (Retired), PG Deptt. of Zoology, Patna University,Patna & Former Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna; Dr. L.N.Ram, Professor (Retired) PG Deptt. of Geography, Patna University,Patna & Former Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna; Dr. BinodKumar Pandey, Prof. & Head, PG Deptt. of Statistics, Patna University,Patna and Dr. Balgangadhar Prasad, Professor (Retired), PG Deptt. ofMathematics, Patna University, Patna & Co-opted Member, was setout in the common report dated 04.11.2019. The summary of the extract(of the answers to the questions) is set out below:

C

D

“The answer to the question by the Expert Committee againstthe order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe SLP (C) No. 23202-23204/2015 with SLP (C) No. 29764-29765/2015, SLP (C) No. 30109/2016 is below:

The explanation is given on separate pages.”

H

A14. The report also contains detailed reasoning in justification ofthe answers, determined to be correct according to the experts. Thedetailed reasoning too is in a common document, prepared unanimouslyby four experts.

15. It is argued on behalf of the BSSC that the process of selectionBin the present case is very complex as altogether 3285 vacancies in 21posts requiring different qualifications under various departments werenotified, and recommendations had been sent by the commission longago in the year 2013, in compliance with the judgment passed in the writpetition. The recommendations were made on the basis of merit cumchoice and suitability of a candidate for a particular post.C

16. It is thus argued that any modification in the result, in compliancewith the order passed in the impugned judgment or in terms of the reportof the committee, would result in administrative chaos as well as in “atsunami of litigation”. The exercise would drastically alter the finalresult, and not only a large number of candidates recommended, selectedDand appointed would be ousted but it would also result in alteration inservice and inter-se seniority position of a large number of candidatesalready appointed and working for the past six years. It is stated thateven confining the result to the candidates who were in litigation beforethe High Court or this court will not help, as candidates who had notEclaimed revision of result will, on the principles of parity, claim appointmentand those already appointed will claim change in services as per theirrevised merit position and /or inter-se seniority in the services.

17. It is submitted that initially this court by order dated 28.09.2015directed BSSC to work out the impugned judgment and show the likelyFresult therein. Pursuant to that order, the BSSC filed additional affidavitsdated 24.09.2015 and 28.10.2015. After considering them, this court byits order dated 31.10.2015 issued notice and stayed the impugnedjudgment. The effect of change of result could well be anticipated fromthe following data indicated in the two additional affidavits (with regardto only four questions):G(a) 249 candidates will have to be removed from service andsimilar number of candidates will be eligible for appointment.

(b) If 249 candidates are to be retained, as directed by the HighCourt, then to give appointment to 249 new candidates and to maintainreservation roster, 688 additional posts will be required.H

BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(c) It is submitted that this will further result in change of posts/services of 1162 candidates already appointed and if they have to beretained at their old posts, then a total of 3362 posts will be required.

18. It is argued that now if the recommendation of the committeeof experts is implemented, then around 3000 to 6000 additional posts, inaddition to those already advertised, would be required to be created toabsorb the effect of alteration of result. It is urged that to avoid litigationand administrative chaos, in the light of the judgment of this court in RanVijay Singh vs State of UP[2], it may be directed that the result published,recommendation sent and appointments made on the basis of the judgmentof the learned single judge should not be interfered with. In Ran VijaySingh (supra), this court held that:

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassiondoes not play any role in the matter of directing or not directingrevaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed bythe examination authority, the complete body of candidatessuffers. The entire examination process does not deserve tobe derailed only because some candidates are disappointedor dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been causedto them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer morebut that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is notalways possible. This Court has shown one way out of animpasse — exclude the suspect or offending question.”

19. The tabular comparative statement for the answers accordingto the experts appointed under directions of this court, and the relativeclaim of the candidates, is extracted below:

Tabular comparative statement of the results of disputedquestions 2 (2018) 2 SCC 357

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2020] 4 S.C.R.

It is evident that the experts appointed by this court haverecommended that two questions (at S. Nos. 5 and 9) should be deletedfor the purpose of evaluation, because of defective or ambiguous (i.e.more than one) answers. It is a matter of record that one set of petitionersFapproached the High Court, complaining of arbitrariness in the declarationof results, as a consequence of defective evaluation. Before they hadapproached the court, the BSSC had undertaken the exercise of submittingthe results to expert evaluation, and then revised the key answers, deleting(from consideration) certain questions. The exercise was undertakenagain by the BSSC, which complied with the single judge’s directions.GAs a result of that exercise, several candidates were appointed. TheDivision bench, regrettably, in the context of appeals by candidates whohad been originally selected, who questioned the decision of the board tohave the re-evaluation, questioned the revised merit list. Others whohad approached the Division Bench were those who were excludedHfrom selection, after the single judge’s decision.

20. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review underArticle 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates-particularly,for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previousdecisions of the court[3]; have constantly underscored that in the absenceof any provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review shouldbe rarely exercised - preferably under exceptional circumstances. Athree judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra)held as follows:

“Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is noprovision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision forscrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for thepurpose of checking whether all the answers given by acandidate have been examined and whether there has beenany mistake in the totalling of marks of each question andnoting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake wasfound in the marks awarded to the appellant in the GeneralScience paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidatein an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim orask for re- evaluation of his marks.”

In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was echoed:“7. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PramodKumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public ServiceCommission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relyingon Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HigherSecondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh BhupeshkumarSheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provisionfor the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, 3 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anotherv. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastavav. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714;Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; HimachalPradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759;Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; CentralBoard of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-DentalEntrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 andRan Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or askfor re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod KumarSrivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-JudgeBench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. PravasRanjan Panda and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 in which thedirection of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers booksof all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was heldto be unsustainable in law because the regulations of theBoard of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted theexamination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation ofanswers books in the rules.

B

C

8. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conductedby the CBSE did not provide for re-examination orre-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the Appellants couldnot have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on D

the representation of the Respondent No. 1 and accordinglyrejected the representation of the Respondent No. 1 forre-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. TheRespondent No. 1, however, approached the High Court andthe learned Single Judge of the High Court directedEproduction of answer sheets on the Respondent No. 1depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and when the answer sheetswere produced, the learned Single Judge himself comparedthe answers of the Respondent No. 1 with the model answersproduced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answersFgiven by the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and Botany,but declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1. WhenRespondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench ofthe High Court, the Division Bench also examined the twoanswers of the Respondent No. 1 in Chemistry and Botanyand agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge thatGthe Respondent No. 1 deserved two additional marks for thetwo answers. In our considered opinion, neither the learnedSingle Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court couldhave substituted his/its own views for that of the examinersand awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1Hfor the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review H

under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purelyacademic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board ofSecondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v.Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has observed:

... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, theCourt should be extremely reluctant to substitute its ownviews as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation toacademic matters in preference to those formulated byprofessional men possessing technical expertise and richexperience of actual day-to-day working of educationalinstitutions and the departments controlling them. It willbe wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic andpurely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature,isolated from the actual realities and grass root problemsinvolved in the working of the system and unmindful ofthe consequences which would emanate if a purely idealisticview as opposed to a pragmatic one were to bepropounded....

9. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugnedjudgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench ofthe High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no orderas to costs. We are informed that the first Respondent was admittedto the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBSCourse will not be affected.”

21. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a reviewof all previous decisions, held as follows:

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and weonly propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. Theyare: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing anexamination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet orscrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then theauthority conducting the examination may permit it;

(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examinationdoes not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet(as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permitre- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly,without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases thata material error has been committed;

(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize theanswer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matterand academic matters are best left to academics;

(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the keyanswers and proceed on that assumption; and

(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to theexamination authority rather than to the candidate.

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions ofthis Court, some of which have been discussed above, thereis interference by the Courts in the result of examinations.This places the examination authorities in an unenviableposition where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examinationexercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there isno doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort inpreparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten thateven the examination authorities put in equally great effortsto successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of thetask might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Courtmust consider the internal checks and balances put in placeby the examination authorities before interfering with theefforts put in by the candidates who have successfullyparticipated in the examination and the examinationauthorities. The present appeals are a classic example of theconsequence of such interference where there is no finalityto the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eightyears. Apart from the examination authorities even thecandidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwiseof the result of the examination-whether they have passed ornot; whether their result will be approved or disapproved bythe Court; whether they will get admission in a college orUniversity or not; and whether they will get recruited or not.This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’sadvantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact ofall this is that public interest suffers.”

22. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of thiscourt, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuationundertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the DivisionBench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule orregulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justifiedthe approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctlyin the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. Ifthere were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel,the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to referthe disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was notdone; the “corrections” indicated by the single judge were accepted bythe BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawnup pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench,thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matterfurther by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts.We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the HighCourt’s interference has not resulted in finality “to the result of theexaminations” despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertaintyabout the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter seseniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux.

23. As noticed earlier, the committee of experts appointed by thiscourt has made its recommendations. Since the exercise indicates thatthe previous re-evaluations (by the single judge and the division bench-both made in the absence of expert recommendations) are not corrector accurate, as an exceptional case, we propose to accept them. Thisapproach of ours is in tune with a recent judgment of this court in PranavVerma v. Registrar General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana[4],where the court accepted the recommendations of a single membercommittee and directed revision of results in a public examination, relatingto recruitment of candidates to judicial service.

24. As a result of the above discussion, the BSSC is directed toevaluate and publish the results afresh, in the light of the recommendationsand report of the experts (constituted by this court) subject to care beingtaken by the BSSC and the Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointmentsmade previously pursuant to the directions of the single judge. In case4 2019 SCC Online SC 1610

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe number of selected candidates (on the basis of the revised result)exceeds the vacancies available as on the last date indicated forconsideration (in the concerned recruitment or recruitments), the stateof Bihar would accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadresas against future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019. This court is herebymaking these directions to put a quietus on the dispute, in exercise of itsBextraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

25. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the PatnaHigh Court, as well as the judgment of the single judge are hereby setaside; the appeals are disposed of in the above terms without order oncosts.

C

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H