A bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh simultaneously directed the commission to invite ten times more candidates from one post to the main examination, which it did not do.
The court directed the commission to get rid of the minimum eligibility criteria for allowing candidates to appear in the written main examination.
You have successfully cast your vote
The criteria were not mentioned in the advertisement of APO recruitment process published in February last year.
The minimum qualification criteria are governed by a General Administration Department resolution passed in 2007. The court directed the commission not to apply the rules of resolution in the recruitment process.
The High Court order has brought relief to a large number of law practitioners, who will now have the opportunity to write more candidates in the main exam rejected by the commission.
Preliminary examination for APO recruitment was held in February this year.
The results were announced on April 2. The Commission issued an explanation on 2 April mentioning the minimum eligibility mark.
A total of 3995 candidates were found eligible to take part in the Mains written test on the basis of minimum qualification but following the High Court order, now it has to invite more than 5500 candidates.
Within an hour of the PT results review order, the commission issued a notification announcing that it had postponed the main written test of the APO recruitment process which was scheduled to be held from August 2 to August 2 at various centers in Patna.
The bench was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by Utpal Kant, Bagesh Kumar Srivastava, Dilshad Ahmad and 311 others. The petitioners were represented by Arjun Prasad Singh, Rupesh Kumar and Bikash Kumar Pankaj. The court allowed the petitioners to pray in a limited way.
They had applied to the high court to direct the BPSC to invite ten times the number of candidates for the vacant seats mentioned in the advertisement. They also called for the removal of the minimum qualification criteria as the advertisement did not mention anything about them and no revised advertisement was published for it.
Several candidates did not meet the eligibility criteria for the main exam due to the minimum qualification criteria after clarification.
Advocate Generals Lalit Kishore and Sanjay Pandey appeared on behalf of the commission and argued that the recruiting agency had completed several recruitment processes as per the minimum eligibility mark criteria prescribed by the GAD resolution where it was mentioned that it would be applicable in all competitive states.
They also submitted that the criteria for previous appointments were not published in the advertisement. However, the court was dissatisfied and only granted the desired relief to the applicants as the Commission’s advertisement did not mention anything about the minimum eligibility criteria by which it called for the application.
Read More Educational News
Keep Reading Latest Breaking News