Aarav Jain vs Bihar Public Service Commission

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 504

S. ABDUL NAZEER, VIKRAM NATH
Aarav Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bihar Public Service Commission – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Sachin Sharma, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Abhijeet Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Dev, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Nimisha, Adv. Mr. Snehil, Adv. Ms. Sayantini, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. For recruitment of 349 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Bihar Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement No. 6 of 2018, dated 23.8.2018 for conducting 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination. The break-up of the 349 posts is as follows:

i.	General/unreserved (01)	175 posts
ii.	SC (02)	56 posts
iii.	SC (03)	03 posts
iv.	EBC (04)	73 Posts
v.	Backward Class (05)	42 Posts

3. After conducting the Screening Test, Written Test and Interview, the Commission vide letter dated 02.12.2019 recommended names of 349 candidates in order of merit. According to the figures available, out of the 349 recommended candidates, four candidates did not turn up for counselling. As such appointment letters were issued on different dates from January, 2020 to December, 2020 to 345 candidates. Further out of these 345 candidates, three candidates did not turn up for joining. As such the candidature of seven candidates was cancelled by the State Government vide order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 504

S. ABDUL NAZEER, VIKRAM NATHAarav Jain – AppellantVersusBihar Public Service Commission – Respondent

S. ABDUL NAZEER, VIKRAM NATH
Aarav Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bihar Public Service Commission – Respondent