Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S.THAKUR, CJI., A.M.KHANWILKAR, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. – APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No. 9092 OF 2012
Decided on : 21-10-2016
(2009) 3 SCC 227; (2002) 6 SCC 127; (2007) 8 SCC 100; (2010) 12 SCC 576; (2011) 1 SCC 150; (2013) 11 SCC 309; (2014) 10 SCC 521; (2016) 1 SCC 454 – Relied upon
(2007) 11 SCC 522; (2008) 3 PLJR (SC) 271 – Referred
(1997) 9 SCC 527 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
On 2 December 2003, the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur issued General order inviting applications for promotion to six Class III posts from amongst Class IV employees of the Civil Court at Muzaffarpur. The selection was to be made on the basis of a fresh written test and interview. Twenty seven candidates appeared in the written examination which was conducted on 20 April 2004 of whom fourteen qualified. These candidates were interviewed on 7 July 2004. Eighty five marks were fixed for the written examination and fifteen marks for the interview. The appointment committee selected six candidates on the basis of merit for appointment to the six Class III posts by promotion. The select list was submitted to the High Court on 26 July 2004. The High Court declined to approve the select list on the ground that the marks allotted for the written examination were not in accordance with the Court’s General letter No. 1 of 1995 and the Rules of 1992, 1998 and 2001 covering Bihar Civil Court Staff. The Registrar (Administration) directed the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to hold a fresh examination fixing ninety marks for the written examination by treating the qualifying marks as forty five.
A fresh General order (171 of 2004) was issued by the District and Sessions Judge on 8 October 2004. The General order stipulated that a fresh written examination comprising ninety marks would be held (with qualifying marks of forty five) which would be followed by an interview carrying ten marks. Pursuant to this, a written test was held on 7 November 2004 followed by an interview on 12 December 2004. Results were declared on 31 December 2004 and the ninth to fourteenth respondents were appointed on Class III posts. All the appellants participated in the process of selection.
The two appellants and four other unsuccessful candidates then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the General order dated 8 October 2004 and the order of appointment dated 31 December 2004.
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment made by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.
The six persons who had been appointed to Class III posts were reverted to their original Class IV posts on 30 November 2010. They filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the ninth to fourteenth respondents and, while setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, restored the original order of appointment dated 31 December 2004.
Finding of the Court:
No fault can be found in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Candidates who participate in a selection process cannot challenge the process afterward if they are unsuccessful, as their participation constitutes an acceptance of the procedure (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The process of recruitment and promotion is governed by rules and administrative instructions, which may be amended from time to time. When rules are amended, the latest rules take precedence over earlier directives or general letters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
If a selection process is conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, and candidates participate without raising objections at the time, they are generally estopped from challenging the process at a later stage, especially after the results are declared (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The interpretation of procedural rules must be consistent with the language of the rules themselves. Vagueness or ambiguity in rules does not necessarily invalidate a process if the process was conducted in good faith and no prejudice is demonstrated (!) .
When a candidate participates in a process knowing the criteria and accepts the opportunity to compete, they cannot later claim that the process was unfair or illegal solely because they were unsuccessful (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The principle of fairness and equity can be upheld by allowing successful candidates to continue in their posts provisionally, especially where re-elections or subsequent processes are contemplated, and ensuring that opportunities for future participation remain open (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 16 December 2011 which allowed a Letters Patent Appeal instituted by the ninth to fourteenth respondents. The Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 November 2010 by which selections made by promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur were quashed. The Division Bench has held that the original petitioners who succeeded before the learned Single Judge in challenging the process of promotion were estopped from doing so, having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process.
2. On 2 December 2003, the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur issued General order No. 204 of 2003 inviting applications for promotion to six Class III posts from amongst Class IV employees of the Civil Court at Muzaffarpur. The selection was to be made on the basis of a fresh written test and interview. Twenty seven candidates appeared in the written examination which was conducted on 20 April 2004 of whom fourteen qualified. These candidates were interviewed on 7 July 2004. Eighty five marks were fixed for the written examination and fifteen marks for the interview. The appointment committee selected six candidates on the basis of merit for appointment to the six Class III posts by promotion. The select list was submitted to the High Court on 26 July 2004. The High Court declined to approve the select list on the ground that the marks allotted for the written examination were not in accordance with the Court’s General letter No. 1 of 1995 and the Rules of 1992, 1998 and 2001 covering Bihar Civil Court Staff. By a letter dated 19 August 2004, the Registrar (Administration) directed the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to hold a fresh examination fixing ninety marks for the written examination by treating the qualifying marks as forty five.
3. Accordingly, a fresh General order (171 of 2004) was issued by the District and Sessions Judge on 8 October 2004. The General order adverted to the communication dated 9 August 2004 of the High Court and stipulated that a fresh written examination comprising ninety marks would be held (with qualifying marks of forty five) which would be followed by an interview carrying ten marks. Pursuant to this, a written test was held on 7 November 2004 followed by an interview on 12 December 2004. Results were declared on 31 December 2004 and the ninth to fourteenth respondents were appointed on Class III posts. All the appellants participated in the process of selection.
4. The two appellants and four other unsuccessful candidates then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in order to challenge the General order dated 8 October 2004 and the order of appointment dated 31 December 2004. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry eighty five marks and the interview, fifteen marks. Counter affidavits were filed in response to the Writ Petition by the Registrar of the Civil Court at Muzaffarpur, the Registrar General of the High Court and by the selected candidates. The High Court on the administrative side defended its action by placing reliance on its General letter bearing No.1 of 1995 (Civil) dated 22 November 1995 which stipulated a written examination comprising of ninety marks (with qualifying marks of forty five) followed by an interview carrying ten marks for promotion from Class IV to Class III posts. The High Court submitted in its counter affidavit that this General letter continued to hold the field. Moreover, it was urged that Rule 6 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001 stipulates that promotion from Class IV to Class III posts shall be made by an appointment committee on the basis of merit cum seniority. While the Rules
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
