1.

Bihar State University Commission has failed to provide any

official government circulars or notifications from the
Government of Bihar or the Government of India that clearly
prohibit the submission of application forms in both the General
and OBC categories. Moreover, the Commission has also
neglected to produce any rules or regulations stating that the
first form submitted by application submitted will be rejected
and only the last form will be considered eligible for interview.

Transparency and clarity in the application process are crucial

for ensuring fairness and equal opportunities for all applicants.
The absence of such guidelines not only creates problem but
also raises questions about the justice, integrity and efficiency
of the University Commission's operations.
In order to uphold the principles of equity and meritocracy, it is
imperative that the Bihar Statue University Commission
promptly addresses these concerns. They should promptly
release the necessary government circulars and notifications,
as well as establish clear rules and regulations regarding the
submission of application forms and the subsequent selection
process before the Advertisement not after releasing interview
latter etc.
The Commission must prioritize transparency, accountability,
and adherence to established norms to restore confidence in
their procedures. It is essential that all eligible candidates are
given a fair chance to participate in the selection process and
that their applications are evaluated based on their
qualifications and merits rather than arbitrary rules.
The Bihar Statue University Commission should take immediate
action to rectify those shortcomings after receiving the letter,
thereby ensuring a level playing field for all applicants and
upholding the principles of fairness and integrity in the
recruitment process.
 It is crucial to prioritize fairness and equal opportunities for all
candidates, especially when it comes to reserved categories in
the interview process. If the Bihar State University Commission
truly intends to provide a fair chance to reserved category
applicants, it should be consider selecting the form that was
applied under the backward category, rather than the form
submitted under the general category, which might disqualify
them from availing their reservation rights. The decision of
commission was wrong, against the reservation rights, without
any Government Order which not followed the mandate of
reservation rights.

2. In the present case, it is disconcerting to note that the Bihar

State University Commission has resorted to concealing its
mistake by providing an answer that the applicant had been
given an opportunity to appear in an interview based on the
Unreserved Category application. However, the Commission
has failed to substantiate this claim with any concrete evidence
or documentation regarding the specific place or stage where
the reservation rights were granted to the applicants (petitioner)
who comes under reserved category, despite several requests
to consider their form in the Backward category after issuing
the call letter and interview.

Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of a fair

and just system. It is the responsibility of the Bihar State
University Commission to provide clear and verifiable evidence
supporting their actions, particularly in cases where reservation
rights are involved. Merely stating that the applicant had an
opportunity in the Unreserved Category without providing any
substantial proof raises concerns about the Commission's
credibility and adherence to due process.
 The failure to produce evidence of granting reservation rights
despite repeated requests to consider the form in the Backward
category further exacerbates the doubt surrounding the
Commission's actions. It is imperative that the Commission
addresses these concerns promptly and provides the necessary
documentation to establish the veracity of their claims.

3. In the present matter, it is important to examine the actions of

the Bihar State University Commission in comparison to the
practices followed by Delhi University. The applicant had
applied for a form in the Reserved Category at Delhi University.
In accordance with the reservation rules, Delhi University
issued an interview letter for both the General and OBC
categories, respectively, under the same form number. Delhi
University explicitly stated that applicants can apply for more
than one form in different categories but must fill out separate
forms and submit them separately, with the respective fees.

Delhi University's approach demonstrated a clear commitment

to preserving the legal rights of Reserved Category applicants
and ensuring a fair chance for them. By allowing applicants to
apply separately in different categories, Delhi University
adhered to the rules and regulations governing reservations,
thereby upholding the principles of equity and inclusion.

However, the actions of the Bihar State University Commission

in rejecting the form that provided the opportunity for
reservation rights appear to be in direct violation of the law and
against established rules. Denying an applicant their rightful
reservation rights after several written request contravenes the
fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

It is crucial for educational institutions and commissions to

uphold the law and follow established regulations to ensure that
the rights of all applicants, especially those from reserved
 categories, are protected. The Bihar State University
Commission's rejection of the form that provided the
opportunity for reservation rights undermines the integrity of
the selection process and raises serious concerns regarding
their adherence to legal requirements.

If, Bihar State University Commission really wanted to give

chance and was bound to rejest the form between two forms
then it should be the form of General Category, not the form of
Reserved category which provide the chance to applicant to
fight in both category as per Reservation rule.

4. In this case, it is crucial to scrutinize the actions of the Bihar

State University Commission in an objective and unbiased
manner. It has come to light that, in an attempt to conceal their
mistakes after several complain and RTI-s, the Commission
convened a meeting dated…….. and made a decision to accept
the form that was filled out later, while rejecting the one that
was submitted earlier.This decision seems to be based on the
fact that the applicant had applied in two separate categories,
rather than the same category. However, the Commission failed
to provide any reference to government rules to justify this
arbitrary decision. Which is not in practice in our country.

The exercise of accepting a later form and rejecting an earlier

one raises serious concerns about the Commission's adherence
to due process and fairness. If the Commission indeed
possesses the authority to make such decisions, it should have
exercised this authority before advertising the position or at
least prior to issuing the call letter. Making such a decision after
issuing the list and the call letter and complains appears to be
an attempt to cover up mistakes and violations of reservation
rules, thereby misleading both the applicant and the general
public. The Bihar State University Commission's actions in this
 case have given rise to doubts and false information, which
further erode trust in the integrity of the selection process.

5. In this judicial legal comment, it is important to examine the

conduct of the Bihar State University Commission and their
handling of the applicant's case. The Commission has been
misleading by asserting that the process was completed,
despite the fact that a call letter was issued just a few days
before the interview. This raises concerns about the
transparency and accuracy of their statements.

Furthermore, it has come to light that the Commission made

several amendments even after declaring the results, in
response to numerous complaints. Notably, in one instance, a
complaint regarding an OBC candidate was found to be valid,
resulting in a vacant OBC seat. However, in the applicant's case,
the Commission failed to address their concerns or provide
them with an opportunity to be considered for the vacant OBC
post. This discrepancy in treatment is deeply concerning and
raises questions about the Commission's commitment to
fairness and equal opportunities.

In light of these circumstances, the applicant respectfully

requests that their case be considered and that they be given
a fair chance for the OBC post, which has recently become
vacant after the revision of the results. It is only just and
equitable that the Commission reassesses the applicant's
situation and ensures that they are afforded the same
opportunities as other candidates in similar circumstances.

The court is urged to carefully evaluate the actions of the Bihar

State University Commission and ascertain whether their
handling of the applicant's case was in line with established
rules and principles of justice. It is imperative that any
discrepancies, misguidance, or failure to provide equal
opportunities are rectified to safeguard the applicant's rights
and restore trust in the fairness of the selection process.

In conclusion, the actions of the Bihar State University

Commission, including misleading statements and the failure to
consider the applicant's case despite recent amendments and a
vacant OBC seat, warrant further examination. The court is
requested to intervene and ensure that the applicant's case is
given due consideration, allowing them a fair chance for the
recently vacated OBC post following the revision of the results.