Bihar Public Service Commission vs Bihar State Minorities Commission and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6073 of 2014
CNR No. BRHC010814102014
======================================================
Bihar Public Service Commission Through its Secretary, 15, Bailey Road,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, P.S.- Sachiwalay, Patna-800001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar State Minorities Commission through Its Chairman, Old Secretariat,
Patna- 800015.
2. Member Secretary, Bihar State Minorities Commission, Old Secretariat,
Patna - 800015
3. Motiur Rehman Ansari Son of Late Mohammad Siddique Ansari Resident
Of Village - Akhiyarpur, P.O. And P.S. - Garkha, District - Siwan
4. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. The General Administration Department, Through Its Principle Secretary,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
6. The Principle Secretary The General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.K. Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-11-2026
Despite paper publication notice, no one appears
on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
2. Heard Mr. K.K. Jha, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Anish Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner/BPSC and Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned counsel for
the Bihar State Minorities Commission (hereinafter referred to
as "Commission").

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
2/12
3. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
"(i) quashing of the order dated 30.12.13
issued vide ref. no. 435 dated 30.12.13 passed
by Learned Member, Bihar State Minorities
Commission, Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate)
in M. Case No. 225/13 whereby and where
under the Learned Member has exceeded its
jurisdiction directing the Bihar Public Service
Commission, Bihar, Patna to take decision
and make recommendation to the Science and
Technology Department to appoint
Respondent no.3 in derogation of the order
dated 13.3.12 passed in CWJC no.8411 of
2007.
(ii) For grant of any other incidental,
consequential or other appropriate relief /
reliefs to which the petitioner may be found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC submits
that the petitioner/BPSC is an autonomous constitutional body
created under Article 315 of the Constitution of India to carry on
its functions independently, fairly and impartially for which it is
constituted of persons of high integrity and qualification. The
purpose of creating such autonomous body is to maintain
democratic system for appointing civil servants solely on the
basis of merit and open competition, only so that they could
carry on administration independently and impartially.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
3/12
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC submits
the petitioner/BPSC has been empowered by article 320 of the
constitution of India to conduct the examination for selection for
appointment to the public services of the state, to convene
departmental promotion committee meetings for promotion of
Public Servants (Gazetted), to recommend punishment to the
Government regarding delinquent Public Servants (Gazetted)
and to also give advice to the Government in matter of public
service whenever is required.
6. The present case relates to the Advertisement No.
26 of 1999. The same was published in the light of the request
made by the Science & Technology Department, Bihar, Patna
vide its Requisition letter no. 999 dated 21.04.1999. The
petitioner/BPSC was requested to make available the
recommendation of suitable candidates by effecting due
selection process against the reported 5 vacancies of the
Assistant Professor (Physics) in Engineering Colleges of Bihar.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC submits
that the respondent No. 3 had applied against the advertised post
as mentioned aforesaid. Meanwhile there was division of the
State and as such the petitioner/BPSC requested the Science &
Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to make

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
4/12
available the revised requisition vide petitioner's letter No. 2492
dated 22.01.2001, but the same was not made available to the
Commission (petitioner) till the publication of the result. The
P.T./Screening Test for suitable candidates was held on
24.02.2002. The Respondent No. 3 was declared successful in
the screening test and called for interview on 09.09.2002. Merit
list was prepared by adding the total marks achieved on the
basis of the academic records in accordance with the prescribed
norms and the interview marks. Finally the result of successful
candidates was published on 21.09.2002 as per the earlier
requisition of the Science & Technology Department, Bihar.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC submits
that the petitioner/BPSC vide its letter No. 68 dated 19.10.2002
sent the recommendation of the successful candidates for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) to the
concerned department. The name of respondent No. 3 was not
recommended because he was placed lower in the merit list. He
further submits the respondent No. 3 has filed a representation
to the petitioner-Commission that the name of one candidate
namely, Sri Janardan Prasad Mahato has been recommended
against the reserved category, though he has made declaration in
his application of being a resident of Jharkhand. Notification for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
5/12
appointment of all the recommended candidates was issued by
the Science & Technology Department vide memo No. 1652
dated 14.10.2004. Despite number of reminders, Sri Janardan
Prasad Mahato did not join the post in question. The concerned
department has cancelled his appointment vide memo No. 1093
dated 31.05.2006.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC submits
that the respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner/BPSC that one
post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in Engineering College is
vacant under category 04 (EBC) due to cancellation of the
appointment of Sri Janardan Prasad Mahato. Respondent No. 3
also requested to recommend his name for appointment taking
into consideration whatever was said in his representation. The
petitioner/BPSC vide its letter No. 124 dated 07.10.2006
decided to take consent of the concerned department to
recommend it against the said vacant post of category 04 (EBC),
which was vacant due to cancellation of appointment of Sri
Janardan Prasad Mahato.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC
submits that it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent
No. 3 has secured only 96.04 marks which is less than one Sri
Ravindra Lal who has secured 99.86 marks. That is why the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
6/12
name of respondent No. 3 was not recommended for the post in
question. The respondent No. 3 had filed C.W.J.C. No. 8411 of
2007 for quashing the recommendation letter No. 190 dated
09.02.2007. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 13.03.2012 with the direction to the petitioner
(herein respondent No. 3) to represent before the Principal
Secretary, Science & Technology Department of State
Government of Bihar. The respondent No. 3 represented before
the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna vide his representation dated
26.03.2012 enclosing the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 8411 of 2007. The same was rejected vide order
dated 28.09.2012. The Respondent No. 3 has filed contempt
petition bearing M.J.C. No. 4761 of 2012 for non-compliance of
the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
8411 of 2007. The aforesaid contempt petition was disposed of
vide order dated 28.09.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the same. The Respondent No. 3 has challenged the
same in C.W.J.C. No. 11749 of 2013. In the meantime, the
respondent No. 3 has filed complaint dated 29.05.2013 before
the Minorities Commission requesting to issue direction to fill
up the vacancy arising due to non-joining of the candidate for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
7/12
the post of Assistant Professor in the Most Backward Category
pursuant to Advertisement No. 26 of 1999.
11. The Minorities Commission registered M. Case
No. 152 of 2013 and issued notice dated 13.06.2013 in exercise
of power under Section 6(e) of the Bihar State Minorities
Commission Act, 1991. The Minorities Commission took
cognizance of letter No. 2342 dated 27.11.2006 of the Science
& Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and
held that the Bihar Public Service Commission is making
discrimination in the selection of minority candidate. The
Minorities Commission also directed the petitioner-Commission
to decide the case of the respondent No. 3 by 30.06.2013 and
inform the Minorities Commission by 15.07.2013. The
Commission as well as Science & Technology Department had
clarified the factual aspect of the issue to the learned Minorities
Commission and informed that the claim of the respondent No.
3 is unconstitutional and not acceptable.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC
submits that considering the replies of the petitioner/BPSC and
Director, Science & Technology Department, Bihar, Patna, the
learned Member, Minorities Commission, Bihar, Patna vide
impugned letter No. 434 dated 30.12.2013 directed the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
8/12
petitioner/BPSC to take decision and make recommendation to
the appointing department to appoint respondent No. 3.
13. The learned Minorities Commission vide its
letter No. 18 dated 29.01.2014 also issued reminder notice to the
petitioner/BPSC wherein the learned Minorities Commission is
insisting to comply order dated 30.12.2013.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner/BPSC
submits the learned Minorities Commission had no jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint of the private respondent and issue
direction to the petitioner in the matter of public appointments
as the Minorities Commission is recommending body to the
Government only. The learned Minorities Commission has no
jurisdiction to act as super adjudicatory body in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
15. Apart from that, a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 of which relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:-
"5. That at the outset it is submitted that the
action and omission of Learned Member,
Bihar State Minorities Commission, Md.
Shamshad Alam (Advocate) in passing the
order impugned is uncalled for and
unwarranted and the answering respondents
are not at all endorsed the same, rather the
order impugned has been passed by the
Learned Member, Bihar State Minorities

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
9/12
Commission, Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate)
in his individual capacity and has never been
brought into the notice of the answering
respondents which is apparent from the
recitation of the order as the same is
dispatched by Learned Member, Bihar State
Minorities Commission, Md. Shamshad Alam
(Advocate) himself on his letter head and
neither the Bihar State Minorities
Commission (herein after referred for the sake
of brevity as 'Commission') nor the Chairman
has given their consent in issuance of the
impugned order.
6. That it is further submitted that the
reference of file number given by the Learned
Member, Bihar State Minorities Commission,
Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate) has not even
found in the Office of the Commission and it
appears that the so-called file has been
opened by the Learned Member, in his
individual capacity and the same against the
settled rule of Minorities Commission Act,
1991.
7. That it is further submitted that under the
Minorities Commission Act, 1991 the
Commission is vested with certain work as
provided under Section 5 and the same does
not gives power to any of the person much
less the answering respondents to act against
the said Act/Rules.
8. That it is further submitted that the Learned
Member, Bihar State Minorities Commission,
Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate) has violated
the rules provided under the Act, 1991
because of the fact that Section 8 of the Act,
1991 clarifies that the Commission shall not
investigate into any such matter which is
pending before any Court or Tribunal or
Quasi Judicial body and in other words the
order impugned has been issued in an
individual capacity by the Learned Member,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
10/12
Bihar State Minorities Commission, Md.
Shamshad Alam (Advocate) of which the
Commission has no endorsement, therefore,
the order under challenge issued by the
Learned Member, Bihar State Minorities
Commission, Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate)
is not legal, valid and justified in law and in
this regard file noting has been forwarded and
is accepted by the answering respondents
under order dated 21.08.2014.
9. That it is not out of place to submit that on
earlier occasion, some Members issued
certain directions/orders without the authority
of respondent no.1, than a letter no.208 dated
13.12.2013 was issued by the Principal
Secretary, Minority Welfare Department
addressed to all the Departmental Heads
besides all Commissioners, District
Magistrates and Police Superintendents with
request not to take cognizance of any
direction/order issued by any Member of the
Commission.
10. That it is further stated and submitted that
the factual position in the matter is this that
the Learned Member, Bihar State Minorities
Commission, Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate)
has not been vested with any power or
authority to issue such order or direction on
his behalf being Member of the Commission
or on behalf of the Commission and as such
the answering respondents are not supporting
the order impugned rather prays for quashing
of the same in the interest of justice.
11. That besides above, the memo no.2312
dated 28.09.2012 has been assailed by the
respondent no.3 in an independent writ
application bearing CWJC No.11749/2013
pending adjudication by the Hon'ble Court
and despite this fact the order dated
30.12.2013 passed in Misc Case No.225/2013
by the Learned Member is bad in law and
hence the Hon'ble Court may pass necessary

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
11/12
order."
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and the stand taken by the Bihar State Minorities Commission in
the counter affidavit, it transpire that the letter issued by the
Minorities Commission by Md. Shamshad Alam (Advocate) in
his individual capacity and without the consent of the Chairman
of the Minorities Commission and the file in question opened by
the learned Member in his individual capacity which is against
the settled law of Minorities Commission Act, 1991. Apart from
aforesaid, Section 8 of the Act, 1991 clarifies that the Minorities
Commission shall not investigate into any such matter which is
pending before any Court or Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Body. In
other words, the order impugned has been issued in an
individual capacity by the learned Member, Bihar State
Minorities Commission, Mohammad Shamshad Alam
(Advocate). The learned Member, Bihar State Minorities
Commission, Mohammad Shamshad Alam (Advocate) has not
been vested with any power or authority to issue such order or
direction on his behalf being member of the Commission or on
behalf of the Commission, and as such the Minorities
Commission is not supporting the order impugned which was
issued by the respondent No. 3, learned Member, Bihar State

Patna High Court CWJC No.6073 of 2014 dt.02-11-2026
12/12
Minorities Commission, Mohammad Shamshad Alam,
Advocate.
17. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances,
order dated 30.12.2013 is hereby set aside and the present
application stands allowed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.


(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date NA