Case title:
Aarav Jain v. The Bihar Public Service, Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2022
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to reject the applications of 8 candidates to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the ground that they had not produced the originals of their certificates at the time of interviews. Taking note of the fact that there are judicial vacancies available and these candidates had scored higher marks than the last selected candidate, the Court observed that if these vacancies get filled up by meritorious candidates, it would only be an asset for the institution helping in the disposal of cases pending in huge numbers.
For recruitment of 349 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the BPSC issued an Advertisement No. 6 of 2018, for conducting the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination. After conducting the Screening Test, Written Test and Interview, the Commission recommended the names of 349 candidates in order of merit. However, the candidature of some of the candidates was cancelled by the state as they failed to produce original certificates at the time of the interview. Out of these, 8 candidates approached the Patna high court. However, their petitions were dismissed as the court did not find favour with such candidates. Hence, the present Special leave petition.
The commission accepted that the ground for rejection of the candidature of these candidates was only and only non-production of the original Certificates and also admitted that these eight Appellants have scored higher than the last selected candidates in their respective categories. However, it was argued by the commission that they could not relax any of the conditions which were mentioned in the advertisement or their brochure or the interview call letter at different stages. Any such relaxation would amount to not following their prescribed procedure which was not within their domain. Further, it was argued that the appellants knowing fully well the condition regarding submission of the original Certificates/Documents at the time of interview having failed to do so, their candidature was rightly rejected.
The Bench consisting of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath considered it fair to not enter into respective arguments and based on the facts observed that the rejection of the candidates was improper, unjustified and not warranted. Further, the court noted that there are vacancies available, which if filled up by meritorious candidates would only be an asset for the institution helping in the disposal of cases pending in huge numbers.
The Bench also addressed the issue of appointment of these 8 candidates and directed that the five candidates of the unreserved categories may be adjusted against present vacancies. As regards the three other candidates in EBC, SC and BC categories, the Court directed that the State may either adjust them against future vacancies which as the court was told are available at present or the State may borrow three posts from future vacancies. The Court further directed that the eight appellants would be entitled to their respective seniority as per their merit; however, they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the intervening period but would be entitled to the same from the date of their joining. The Court also made it clear that this order would not affect the appointment/selection of already serving Judicial officers appointed against the concerned notification.
About the author
