BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.versusMANOJ KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.

A          BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
                               v.
                 MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.

                            OCTOBER 31, 1996.

B               [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

        Service Law-Recruitment process-Bihar Public Service
  Commission-Validity of decision, to have centralised valuation of the
  answer books-Decision adopted by the majority ofthe members present-
  Subsequently on the circulation note, majority of members felt that matter
C of centralised valuation may be reconsidered, but no resolution passed to
  rescind the same-Held, decision not invalid.

        Administrative Law-Public Service Commission-Appointment of
  examiners, on the basis of panel approved by committee constituted in
  accordance with rule-Held, not essential that every decision be taken by
D the entire body ofmembers-Hence, appoiniment not illegal.-Bihar Public
  Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1993.

         Before the 37th Combined Competitive Examination the
    Commission {CCEC), Chairman of the Bihar Public Service
E   Commission decided to introduce a system of centralised evaluation
    of answer books. The centralised evaluation of 37th CCEC was
    challenged in a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court on the
    ground that the decision to change the mode of evaluation was taken
    by the Chairman alone, which could only be taken by the Commission.
    But the High Court did not interfere with the result of 37th CCEC as
F   the Commission had adopted this as a matter of conduct of
    examination and observed that the reasons cited for introducing the
    system of centralised evaluation were indeed good and valid and one
    could not find any fault with them. Sanjay Kumar v. BPSC {1994) 2
    PL.JR 414.
G
       In the commission meeting on 16.8.1993, it was decided that the
  question setters/moderators/examiners should be from outside the
  State and of the rank of Professor/Reader and whose name figure
  inthe UGC Handbook or Handbook of Association of the University
  Teachers. Only in case of non-availability they should be replaced
H from the persons from Bihar but those should be figured in the
                                  280
          BIHAR PUBLIC 5ERYICE COM MN. v. M. KR. PANDEY            281


handbooks. The panel made thereof should be put up before the             A
Commission for approval. In the next Commission meeting on
18.9.1993, which was attended by the Chairman and the six members
of the Commission, the said Resolution was adopted, the Chairman
and four members voted in favour of the Resolution but two members
expressed their dissent.
                                                                          B
      Bihar Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,1993 was
also adopted by majority in the Commission meeting on 3.11.1993.
In the Procedure a specific provision was made for the appointment
of question setters/moderators/examiners under clauses (viii) and (ix)
of Rule 4. Subsequently, when the note regarding appointment of
examiners was circulated, majority of the members felt that the matter C
may be reconsidered by the Full Commission.

      The Chairman had constituted a two members committee for
the 38th CCEC. The committee with the Chairman approved the
panel of examiners/head. examiners for the evaluation of answer books.
This evaluation was conducted in the Commission premises and the D
result was declared on 27.4.1994. Two writ petitions were filed,
challenging the decision of the Commission for having centralised
evaluation, as well as the appointment of examiners for such
evaluation. The High Court by its impugned judgement allowed the
writ petitions on the grounds that: (i) the process of taking the decision E
to hold centralised evaluation was bad and (ii) the appointment of
examiners was not made in accordance with the decision taken by the
Commission of 16.8.1993 and 18.9.1993. Hence, this appeal.

     Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                                                          F
      HELD : 1.1. The H.igh Court observed in the writ petition 'Sanjay
Kumar v. BPSC' that the reason cited for introducing the system of
centralised evaluation of answer books were good and valid and one
could not find any fault with them hut such a decision should have
been taken by the Commission. The Commission, thereafter,                 G
considered the matter in its meeting on 16.8.1993. It was also decided
in the meeting that the question setter/moderators/examiners should
be of Professor/Reader rank and from outside the State. In the
Commission meeting on 18.9.1993, the Resolution was adopted,
Chairman and four members voted in favour of the resoslution and
two members expressed their dissent. But that does not affect the         H
    282                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A validity of the decision which was adopted by the Majority of the
    members present at the meeting. The fact that subsequently when
    the note regarding the appointment was circulated by the Officer on
    Special Duty, majority of the members felt that the matter may be
    reconsidered by the Full Commission does not mean that the decision
    taken at the meeting on 18.9.1993 stood nullified. The said decision
B   could be rescinded only by a resolution adopted at a properly convened
    meeting of the Commission. Since, no such resolution was passed the
    decision taken at the meeting held on 18.9.1993 remained in force.
                                                        1290 F-H, 291 B-E)

          Sanjay Kumar v. BPSC, (1994) 2 PLJR 414, referred to.
c
        1.2. The conduct of the Chairman of the Commission in not
  convening a meeting of the full Commission to reconsider the decision
  dated 18.9.1993 was reasonable on the basis that since the written
  examination had already commenced and it might not be appropriate
  to reopen the matter of evaluation of answer book again. Moreover
D the matter did come up for consideration before the Commission on
  3.11.1993 when the Rules of Procedure were adopted. The members,
  if they so wanted, could have disapproved the provision and could
  have reviewed the decision regarding centralised evaluation taken on
  18.9.1993, but they did not choose to do so. Hence, the observation of
  the High Court that the conduct of the Chairman in this regard verges
E on ma/a fide cannot be upheld. 1292 BC)
        2. In a multimember body, like the Commission, it may not be
  feasible for every mel1'.ber to associate personally and directly with
  the decision-making in respect of every matter. In Rule 3 provision
F was made regarding allocation of business of the Commission. In Rule
  4 (viii) express provision was made regarding the appointment of
  examiners which prescribed that the said appointment shall be made
  on the basis of the panel approved by the Committee consisting of
  Chairman and two members nominated by him. Hence, the examiners
  were appointed in accordance with the aforesaid provision of the Rules
G of Procedure and the appointment does not suffer from any legal
  infirmity. )293 E-G, F, 294A)

          Naraindas Jndurkhya v. State of MP. and Ors., )I 9741 3 SCR 624,
    relied on.

H         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3102-
     BlHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. '· M. KR. PANDEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, I.]   283


3103 of 1995 Etc.                                                              A

     From the Judgment and order dated 16.1.95 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.J.C.No.4504 and 4180 of 1994.

     Kapil Sibal, P.P.Rao, S.B. Sanyal, L.R. Singh, Irshad Ahmad, Manoj
Saxena, Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Akhilesh Kr. Pandey,       B
S.K. Bhattacharya and Avijit Bhattacharjee (Dr. Shiva Jatan Thakur) (in-
person) for the appearing parties.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      S.C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment         C
of the Patna High Court dated January 16, 1995 in C.W.J.C.Nos. 4504
and 4180 of 1994 relating to the 38th Combined Competitive (Main)
Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for making selection for
appointment to the civil services in the State of Bihar.
                                                                               D
      The Combined Competitive Examination is conducted by the
Commission in two parts. There is a Preliminary Examination for all the
applicants and those who qualify in the preliminary examination are
required to take the Main Written Examination which is followed by viva
voce test. Prior to the 37th examination, the Commission was adopting the
system of evaluation of the answerbooks by outside examiners and for           E
that purpose answerbooks were sent to the examiners outside the State.
Before the commencement of the 37th examination, the Chainnan of the
Commission decided to introduce the system of centralised evaluation of
answerbooks.
                                                                               F
       The said system of centralised evaluation ofanswer books was assailed
in a writ. petition filed before the Patna High Court Sanjay Kumar and Ors
v. The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors., (1994) 2 PLJR 414.
The main ground of attack which was accepted by the High Court, was
that the decision regarding change of mode of evaluation had been taken
by the Chairman alone and not by the Commission and that the Chairman          G
was not competent to take such a decision and it could be taken only by
the Commission, i.e, the Chainnan and all the members. Taking note of
the fact that major and substantial role regarding taking of decisions was
left in hands of the Chairman and that over the years no member ever
objected to the conduct of examination in this manner and at the time of
the 37th examination also no member, save one, raised any objection or         H
    284                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A made any protest regarding the manner and mode in which the decisions
  regarding the conduct of the examination were being taken by the Chairmna,
  the High Court held that the Commission had adopted this as the matter of
  conduct of examinations. The High Court, therefore did not interfere with
  the result of the 37th examination. At the same time, the High Court
  directed the Commission to evolve a procedure for the conduct of
B examinations which must be both reasonable and in conformity with law
  and that rules be framed for ensuring that the entire body of the Commission
  fully participate in the decision making process on basic issues and policy
  matters. As regards the centralised evaluation system the High Court has
  observed that the reasons cited for introducing the system were indeed
  good and valid and one could not find any fault with them but in the
C concluding remarks the High Court expressed the view that "the
  Commission will be well advised to once again consider the question of
  sending the answerbooks to the examiners outside the State of Bihar as
  this process seems to evoke greater confidence and keeps the Commissions'
    examinations free from any controversy."

D         The said decision in Sanjay Kumar case (supra) was given on June
    11, 1992 and by that time the process for conducting the 38th Combined
    Competitive Examination had commenced. The Preliminary Examination
    had been held on May 24, 1992 and the result of the said examination was
    declared on July 17/18, 1992. The written part of the Main examination
    was delayed on account of filing of writ petitions by unsuccessful candidates
E   in the Patna High Court against the result of the preliminary examination.
    The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court on July 29,
    1993. Thereafter, on August 16, 1993, the Commission decided that the
    Main (written) examination would commence with effect from September
    20, 1993 at Patna and Ranchi centres and that "the Question Setters/
F   Moderators/Examiners should be of Professor/Reader rank and should be
    from outside the State and whose names figure in the UGC Handbook or
    Handbook of Association of the University Teachers and the panel thereof
    should be put up before the Commission for approval."

          The matter of evaluation of answerbooks connected with the 38th
G   Combined Competitive (Main) Examination was further considered by
    the Commission at its meeting held on September 18,1993 and it was
    decided to adopt the system of centralised evaluation at the office of the
    Commission under the strict vigilance of the Chairman and Members
    nominated by the Commission. In the said meeting it was also decided
H   that the selection of examiners and head-examiners be made from among
     BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN v. M. KR. PANDEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 285



the Readers and Professors whose names figure in the Handbook of Teachers       A
published by the University Grants Commission and by the Association of
University Teachers available in the Commission's office and that a list of
such teachers prepared by the Secretary will be approved with r.ecessary
changes indicated therein. It was also decided to make utmost efforts to
get such examiners and head-examiners more and more from outside Bihar
and in case of non-availability they should be replaced from among the          B
persons from Bihar and.who also figure in those Handbooks and who are
of eminence and who have been associated with variou5 commission's
working and that the Secretary/Officer on Special Duty incharge
examinations will ensure that examiners/head-examiners invited for
evaluation should not be involved in any misconduct previously. The said
meeting of the Commission held on September 18, 1993 was attended by            C
the Chairman and six members of the Commission out of whom the
Chairman and four members voted in favour of the Resolution and two
members expressed their dissent.

       On October 5, 1993, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) submitted
a note regarding the holding of centralised evaluation. The said note was       D
circulated among the members. On such circulation, Shri Shiv Jatan Thakur
and Sri. B. Ram, the two members who had dissented at the meeting held
on September 18, 1993, reiterated their view opposing the centralised
evaluation system. Shri S.Singh, who had supported the Resolution
reiterated his view. Shri K.P. Singh, who also had supported the Resolution,    E
expressed the view that since there is sharp division among the members
over the issue, it would be wise to get the papers evaluated by the examiners
outside the State and he suggested that meeting of the Commission be held
to discuss the issue in the light of the note of the OSD. Shri. S.N. Singh,
who also had voted in favour of the Resolution, suggested that the matter
be placed before the full Commission. Smt. C.B. Devi stated that although       F
in the meeting held on September 18, 1993 she was in favour of the
centralised evaluation, but in view of the controversy, the matter be placed
before the Commission again. Shri Karma Oraon, who did not attend the
meeting held on September 18, 1993, suggested that the Commission should
meet and deliberate upon the issues raised by OSD. Shri S.S. Mashadi and        G
Shri Saryu Prasad, who also had not attended the meeting held on September
18, 1993, agreed with the view of Shri K.P. Singh and opined that the
matter be discussed by the Full Commission. A meeting of the Commission
was held on November 3, 1993. In the said meeting the Bihar Public
Service Commission Rules of Procedure 1993 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules of procedure') were adopted by majority. Rule 3 of the said          H
    286                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A rules made provision for allocation of the business of the Commission. In
    the said rule it was provided that the business of the Commission shall be
    transacted either by the Commission or by one or more members including
    the Chairman as specified in the Schedule appended to the rules. It was
    further laid down that the Chairman may, if he considers necessary or
    expedient to do so in public interest, direct that any particular matter or
B   business be placed before the Commission for disposal and that any other
    business ofthe Commission not specified in the Schedule shall be transacted
    by the Commission. Clauses (viii) to (xi) of Rule 4 made the following
    provisions:-

                 "4 (viii) For appointment as question setters, moderators and
c                examiners for evaluation of answer books the officer on
                 special duty incharge of Examinations shall prepare a panel
                 of teachers who have put in at least ten years of service in a
                 Constituent/Government College or five years in a Post-
                 graduate Department and place it for approval before a
                 Committee consisting of the Chairman and two Members
D                nominated by him.

                  (ix) The Officer on Special Duty incharge o_f examinations
                  shall with the prior approval of the Chairman, appoint paper
                  setters, moderators and examiners from the panel approved
E                 vide sub-rule (viii) of Chapter lll.

                  (x) In making such appointments every care should be taken
                  to ensure that no such person is appointed as was found guilty
                  of misconduct of any University Government or Government
F                 Body or against whom any enquiry or investigation may be
                  pending on allegations of misconduct or whose integrity is
                  in doubt. Any person whose work as Head Examiner, Paper
                  Setter or Moderator is found to be unsatisfactory by the
                  Commission shall not be re-appointed for that purpose.

G                 (xi) Notwithstanding anything contained heretobefore
                  evaluation of answer books, the Commission may decide for
                  centralised evaluation in the premises of the Bihar Public
                  Service Commission. In such eventuality, the Chairman is
                  hereby authorised to take appropriate steps in accordance
H                 with the guidelines prescribed forthe selection of examiners."
     BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. '· M KR. PANDEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J] 287



      The OSD submitted a Note on November 9, 1993 wherein he referred         A
to the Rules of Procedure and suggested that a Committee may be
constituted for approval of the list of examiners. On November 23, 1993,
he submitted two Notes stating that the office had prepared a new list of
examiners and a list had also been received from the Universities of Bihar,
Muzaffarpur and Patna. On November 23, 1993, the Chairman constituted
a committee of two members who alongwith the Chairman approved the             B
panel of examiners/head-examiners as prepared by the office and also the
panel sent by the Vice Chancellors of the three universities aforementioned.
The evaluation of answer books commenced on November 28, 1993 in the
premises of the Commission by the examiners so appointed. The result of
38th Main written examination was declared on April 27, 1994 and 657
candidates, who were declared successful, were required to appear for          C
viva voce test which was to commence from May 14, 1994. In the
meanwhile a writ petition (C.W.J.C.No. 4180 of 1994) was filed in the
High Court wherein it was prayed that the result of the 38th Combined
Competitive (Main) Examination may be quashed and that the Commission
be directed to send the answer books of the said examination for evaluation
by the examiners outside the State of Bihar. On May 28/29,1994 the             D
Commission declared the final list of successful candi<lah:s for appointment
on various posts. Thereafter another writ petition (CWJC NO. 4504 of
1994) was filed in the High Court.

      In both the writ petitions the decision of the Commission for having     E
centralised evaluation of answer books as well as the decision regarding
appointment of examiners for the purpose of such evaluation were
challenged. The writ petitions have been allowed by the High Court by
the impugned judgment. The High Court has held that the process of
taking the decision to have centralised evaluation as well as its
implementation were bad and as a result the entire evaluation process has      F
been rendered illegal and arbitrary. The High Court has directed the
Commission to get the answer books of the 38th Combined Competitive
(Main) Examination evaluated afresh by sending them for evaluation outside
the State.

                                                                               G
      The High Court has emphasised that the earlier decision of the
Commission dated August 16, 1993 for having the answer books examined
by the examiners from outside the State, had been taken unanimously at
the meeting of the Commission which was attended by the Chairman and
eight out of nine members. As regards the decision taken on September
18, 1993 the High Court has observed that the said meeting was attended H
    288                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A by Chainnan and six members and out of them while the Chainnan and
  four members were in favour of the decision two members had dissented
  and that after the said decision had been taken the matter had been circulated
  and almost the whole Commission except two including the Chairman
  wanted a fresh consideration in the light of the difficulties pointed out by
  the OSD. The High Court has observed that when \he majority of the
B members were against centralised evaluation and had desired further debate
  and discussion the Chairman had no option but to convene a meeting of
  the Full Commission and try for a consensus but nothing appears to have
  been done for full one month. The High Court has also referred to the fact
  that after the minutes of Smt. C.B.Devi dated October 8, I 993 the file
  appears to have disappeared until November 9, 1993 when the OSD
C submitted his note regarding approval of the list of examiners. According
  to the High Court the conduct of the Chairman in pre-empting any
  discussion and getting centralised evaluation done in the circumstances
  verges on mala fide. As regards the appointment of examiners the High
  Court has held that as per the decisions of the Commission dated August
   16, 1993 and September 18, 1993 the examiners were to be of the rank of
D Professor/Reader from outside the State whose names figure in the UGC
  Handbook or the Handbook of Association of University Teachers and
  that Shri Ram Rattan Singh, one of the examiners, does not figure in the
   Handbook and he cannot claim to be of the rank of Professor/Reader and
  there may be such several types of persons who evaluated the answer
E books. While dealing with the stand of the Commission that the answer
   books had been evaluated by teachers of constituent/government colleges
   having ten years teaching experience or a teacher having five years teaching
   experience in post gr:iduate department, the High Court has observed that
   the said stand is virtually a quotation of Chapter III rule 4 (viii) of the
   Rules of Procedure and that besides being a bald omnibus stand, factually
F did not appear to be true. According to the High Court the circumstances
   in which the office prepared the list of examiners during the interregnum
   between October 8 and November 9, 1993 when the file had v·irtually
   disappeared were suspicious. The High Court has further observed that
   there was nothing on the record to suggest that the teachers of the rank of
G Professor/Reader, as mentioned in the Handbooks were not available for
   evaluation, they might not be available for evaluation of answerbooks at
   Patna within the premises of the Commission but surely they would have
    been available at their respective places provided these answer books had
    been sent outside.
                                                                                   -
H         Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Commission
     BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. '· M. KR. PANDEY [SC. AURA WAL,!.] 289



has filed C.A.Nos.3 J02-3 l 03 of 1995 and the selected candidates have        A
filed C.A.Nos.3104-3106 of 1995.

      The High Court has annulled the evaluation of the answer books for
Main Written Examination for two reasons: (i) the process of taking the
decision to hold centralised evaluation was bad and (ii) the appointment
of examiners was not made in accordance with the decision taken by the         B
Commission on August 16, 1993 and September 18, 1993.

       As regard the adoption of the system of centralised evaluation of the
answer books it is no doubt true that in Sanjay Kumar (supra) the High
Court had expressed the view that the Commission would be well advised
once again to consider the question of sending the answer books to the         C
examiners outside the State of Bihar as this process seems to evoke greater
confidence and keeps the Commission's examinations free from any
controversy. But in the said case the High Court has also observed that so
far as the introduction of centralised system of evaluation was concerned,
the reasons assigned for the same were indeed good and valid and one
could not find any fault with them. The only fault that was found by the       D
High Court in the decision to have centralised evaluation was that it had
not been taken by the Commission but was taken by the Chairman alone
and that such a decision should have been taken by the Commission. After
the said judgment in Sanjay Kumar (supra) the matter was considered by
the Commission at its meeting held on August 16, 1993. It was decided
that the Question Setters/ Moderators/ Examiners should be of Professor/       E
Reader rank and should be from outside the State. The matter of evaluation
was again considered by the Commission at the meeting held on September
 18, 1993. The proceedings of the said meeting, which were placed before
the High Court, have been placed before us. The said proceedings show
that the Commission took into consideration the fact that there would be
about I .5 lakhs answer books and that the gigantic work of dispatching        F
the same to different destinations would cause inordinate delay in declaring
the result which had already been delayed on account of prolonged litigation
and there would be disruption of schedule of competitive examinations
and it would also aggravate the suffering among the unemployed youths
who had the taste of bitter suffering because of discomfiture of average.      G
In the said meeting the following points surfaced prominently for
discussion:-

             "(a) Whether the Commission can opt for centralised
             evaluation at the Commission's office under a foolproof
             system where there is no scope of leakage and consequential       H
    290                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A               allegation on that account in order to save time likely to be
                consumed in dispatch of the answer books to various
                destinations outside Bihar and their arrival back at the office
                of the Commission.

                (b) Whether the option of the Commission will not be
B               inderogation of the observations of the Hon'ble Patna High
                Court given in C.W.J.C.No.1192/92 concerning 37th
                Combined Competitive Examination wherein the Commission
                has been well-advised to send the answer books outside Bihar
                to avoid any allegation in future.

c               (c) Whether it is incumbent upon this Commission to evolve
                any best device in the circumstances which not only avoids
                chances of genuine allegation but mitigates the suffering of
                the unemployed youths who by such inordinate delay have
                already become restive and are always found hoging around
                in the Commission's campus for immediate remedial
D               measures.

                (d) In the event of Commission contemplating to go in favour
                of centralised evaluation how best of the examiners and head-
                examiners be drawn from the academic world and what best
E               criteria be prescribed for their selection.

                 (e) Any other arrangement the Commission considered
                 appropriate as incidental and consequential."

          After considering all the pertinent aspects of the matter the
F Commission decided to adopt the system of centralised evaluation at the
  office of the Commission under strict vigilance of the Chairman and
  members nominated by the Commission. The Commission took note of
  the fact that there had not been any comment over the system of centralised
  evaluation adopted during the 37th Combined Competitive Examination
G and, therefore, decided that the same system with necessary changes and
  ensuring fuller involvement of the Members be adopted for evaluation of
  answer books connected with the 38th Combined Competitive (Main)
  Examination. The Commission reiterated its earlier decision dated August
   16, 1993 that selection of examiners and head-examiner's be made from
  among the Readers and Professors whose names figure in the Handbook
H of Teachers published by the UGC and by the Association of University
     BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN ' M. KR. PANDEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 291



Teachers available in the Commission's office and that a list of such teachers   A
prepared by the Secretary will be approved with necessary changes indicated
therein. The Commission also decided to make utmost efforts to get such
examiners and head exa1niners 1nore and more from outside Bihar and in
case of non-availability they should be replaced from among persons from
Bihar and who also figure in these Handbooks and who are of eminence
and have been associated with various Commissions working and that the           B
Secretary/Officer on Special Duty incharge examinations will ensure that
examiners/head-examiners invited for evaluation should not be involved
in any misconduct previously. The meeting held on September 18, l99l
was attended by the Chairman and six members out of whom the Chairman
and four members voted in favour of the Resolution and two members
expressed their dissent. But that does not affect the validity of the decision   C
which was adopted by majority of the members present at the meeting.
The fact that subsequently when the note dated October 5, 1993 submitted
by the Officer on Special Duty was circulated majority of the members
felt that the matter may be reconsidered by the full Commission, does not
mean that the decision taken at the meeting held on September 18, 1993
stood nullified. The said decision could be rescinded only by a resolution       D
adopted at a properly convened meeting of the Commission. Since no
such resolution was passed the decision taken at the meeting held on
September 18, 1993 remained in force. The centralised evaluation of answer
books for 38th Combined Competitive (Main) Examination on the basis
of the said decision cannot, therefore, be held to be vitiated by any legal      E
infirmity.

      The conduct of the Chairman of the Commission in not convening a
meeting of the Full Commission to reconsider the decision dated September
 18, 1993 for introducing centralised evaluation has been adversely
commented upon by the High Court and it has been observed that it verges         F
on mala fide. We are una~le to endorse these observations. As mentioned
earlier in Sanjay Kumar (supra) the High Court had not found any fault
with the centralised evaluation system that was introduced by the Chairman
for the 37th Combined Competitive Examination. In the impugned
judgment also the High Court has observed:-                                      G

              "! should not be understood as condemning outright the
              system of centralised evaluation. Materials have not been
              produced before us either in its favour or against it. I am not
              aware of the recent trends in the field of public administration
              in this regard."                                                   H
    292                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A          The comments of the members on the note of OSD under circulation
    were made on October 7 and 8, 1993. Prior to that the Main Written
    Examination had commenced on September 20, 1993. Jn the circumstances,
    the Chairman could have reasonably proceeded on the basis that since the
    writ ten examination has already commenced it may not be appropriate to
    reopen the matter of evaluation of answerbooks and the same may be done
B   in accordance with the decision already !~ken on September 18, 1993.
    Moreover the matter did come up for consideration before the Commission
    on November 3, 1993 when the Rules of Procedure were adopted. The
    Commission, instead of reconsidering the decision dated September 18,
     1993 regarding centralised evaluation of answerbooks, approved Rule 4(xi)
    which enables adoption of centralised evaluation in the premises of the
C   Commission. The Members, if they so wanted, could have disapproved
    the said provision and could have reviewed the decision regarding centralised
    evaluation taken on September 18, 1993. They did not choose to do so.

          As regards the comment made by the High Court that the file had
    disappeared after the note of Smt. C.B. Devi dated October 8, 1993 till
D   November 9, 1993, Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing
    for the Commission, has pointed out that the two writ petitions (CWJC
    Nos. 7203 and 8049of1992) filed in the Patna High Court by the candidates
    who were unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examination wherein they had
    prayed for quashing of the results of the said examination were dismissed
E   by the High Court by judgment dated July 29, 1993 and Special Leave
    Petition (C) No. 15178/93 was filed by the Association of Civil Service
    Examinees against the said decision in this Court. In the said Special Leave
    Petition this Court, on October 8, 1993 had issued notice to the Commission
    and granted time for filing counter affidavit. It is stated that the original
    file was sent to the counsel of the Commission in Delhi for preparing the
F   counter affidavit in the said special leave petition. There was thus nothing
    mysterious about the file not being available in the office of the Commission
    during the period from October 8 to November 9, 1993 and the High
    Court was in error in drawing an adverse inference therefrom.

G         There is no material on the record which may indicate that the
    Chairman, in not having the matter of centralised evaluation reconsidered
    by convening a meeting of the full Commission between October 8, 1993
    and November 3, 1993 was actuated by any extraneous consideration. In
    the circumstances, the observations by the High Court that the conduct of
    the Chairman in this regard verges on mala fide cannot be upheld and has
H   to be set a•ide.
     BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v. M. KR. PANDEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, I.] 293



       The appointment of examiners was made by a committee of two              A
members nominated by the Chairman along with the Chairman out of the
list submitted by the OSD. The High Court has found fault with the
appointment of examiners by referring to the appointment of Shri Ram
Rattan Singh, retired Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures who is said
to have evaluated the Agriculture paper. It is stated that he does not figure
in the Handbook and he cannot claim to be of the rank of Professor/             B
Reader. On behalf of the Commission it has been pointed out that Shri
Ram Rattan Singh holds a Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Economics from
Ohio State in USA and has worked as Professor and Head of the Department
in Ranchi Agricultural University and as Professor of Agricultural
Economics at Ranchi College of Agriculture for more than I 0 years and
has guided several students in their research and preparation for obtaining     C
Ph.D. degree. It cannot, therefore, be said that Shri Ram Rattan Singh
was not of the rank of Professor. The High Court has also commented on
the circumstances in which the office prepared the list of examiners between
the period of interregum between October 8 and November 9, 1993 when
the file is said to have disappeared. We have already dealt with this aspect
of the case and have found that there was nothing mysterious in the file        D
being not available in the office from October 8 to November 9, 1993.

      Shri S.B. Sanyal, th~ learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, has submitted that the appointment of the examiners was
done virtually by the Chairman because the committee of two members
which was associated in the matter had been nominated by the Chairman           E
himself. The submission is that the appointment of the examiners should
have been made by the Full Commission. Reliance has been placed on the
decision of this court in Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of MP. and Ors,
[1974] 3 SCR 624. There is no merit in this contention. In a multi-member
body, like the Commission, it may not be feasible for every member to
associate personally and directly with decision making in respect of every      F
matter. It would, therefore, be permissible to constitute committees of
members or authorise a member to consider the manifold matters which
may come up for consideration before the Commission. This is what has
been done by the Rules of Procedure that were adopted on November 3,
1993. In Rule 3 provision was made regarding allocation of business of          G
the Commission. It was provided that the business of the Commission
shall be transacted either by the Commission or one or more members
including the Chairman as specified in the Schedule appended to the rules.
With regard to appointment of examiners express provision was contained
in Rule 4 (viii) which prescribed that the said appointment shall be made
on the basis of a panel approved by a committee consisting of Chairman          H
    294                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A and two Members nominated by him. The examiners were appointed in
    accordance with the aforesaid provision in the Rules of Procedure.

         In Narayandas (supra) the Court was dealing with the the questio11
  whether a notification prescribing the textbooks had been rightly issued
  by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of section 4
B (I) of the Madhya Pradesh Prathmik Middle ~chool Tatha Madhyamik
  Shiksha (Pathya Pustakon Sambandhi Vyuavstha) Adhiniyam, 1973 which
  required prior consultation with the Board of Secondary Education. In
  that case the matter had not been considered by the Board and the Chairman
  of the Board had made the recommendations on the basis of which the
  impugned notification had been issued. It was held that the recommendations
C made by the Chairman of the Board, by himself, could not be regarded as
  recommendations by the Board. It was, however, observed:-

                 "Now we do not dispute the general proposition that when a
                 power or function is given by the statute to a corporate body
                 and no provision is made in the statute as to how such power
D                or function shall be exercised, the corporate body can by a
                 resolution passed at a general meeting devise its own mind
                 of exercising such power or function such as authorising
                 one or more of the members to exercise ·it on behalf of the
                 Board."
E
          The said observations lend support to the submission urged on behalf
    the Commission that under the Rules of Procedure adopted by the
    Commission on November 3, 1993 the power regarding appointment of
    examiners had been assigned to a committee consisting of the Chairman
    and two members to be nominated by the Chairman. It cannot therefore
F   be said that the appointment of examiners sufferc from any legal infirmity.

       For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment of the High
  Court cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore,
  allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
G writ petitions filed bofore the High Court are dismissed. But in the
  circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

    B.K.S.                                                  Appeals allowed.