1. Recruitment for judicial posts — Cancellation of candidature for non-production of original certificates at interview — Challenge against rejection despite merit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 504
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Aarav Jain - Appellant
Versus
The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10776 of 2021)
Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4243 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11089 of 2021)
Sumit Kumar - Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Bihar And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4244 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15809 of 2021)
Mayank Kumar Pandey @ Mayank & Anr - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4246 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15819 of 2021)
Ashish Chandra - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4245 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16198 of 2021)
Anita Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 2022@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 809 of 2022)
Decided On : 23-05-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cancellation of candidature of candidates on technical grounds would be improper, unjustified and not warranted.
Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cancellation of candidature of candidates on technical grounds would be improper, unjustified and not warranted.
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cancellation of candidature for want of fulfilment of conditions required as per interview call letter – One of conditions required was to submit originals of certificates detailed therein which included educational certificates, Caste certificates if claiming any benefit of reservation, No Objection Certificates of previous employer, Character Certificate of last attended College/University and other certificates of residence etc. at the time of interview – As per conditions mentioned in advertisement for any government employment, there is always a clause that in certificate/testimonies, if information furnished by any candidate is found to be incorrect at a later stage, during any enquiry, candidature for such candidates is liable to be cancelled – It is not case of respondent that any of these certificates have been found to be incorrect – It is only this technical ground of not producing original certificate at the time of interview that candidature of appellants had been rejected even though they had scored higher marks in their respective category from marks obtained by last selected candidate – Rejection of candidature was improper, unjustified and not warranted – There are vacancies available which if filled up by meritorious candidates would only be an asset for institution helping in disposal of cases pending in huge numbers – 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 intervening period, but would be entitled to the same from date of their joining – They would be forthwith allowed to join – All incremental and other benefits of intervening period would be notionally available to them, but no arrears would be paid – Impugned decision of Commission qua these appellants and impugned judgments of High Court set aside. (Paras 4, 9, 16, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
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. 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 candidature of seven candidates was cancelled by the State Government vide orders issued on different dates. Appellants had admittedly secured higher marks than last selected candidates in their respective categories but Commission had cancelled their candidature for want of fulfilment of the conditions required as per the interview call letter.
Findings of Court:
Application for directions filed by Jyoti Joshi seeking the directions as such cannot be granted nor can she claim parity or any benefit from the judgment of Swati Chaturvedi which was passed much before the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court or interim orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application for directions stands rejected.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
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
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
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim technical non-compliance should not override merit; Respondents argue strict adherence to advertisement conditions is mandatory. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
3. Rejection on technical grounds for non-production of original certificates is improper and unjustified when candidates are meritorious and documents are available. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 16 )
4. Technical failure to produce original certificates at the time of interview does not justify rejecting meritorious candidates if eligibility is otherwise established. (Para 9 , 16 )
5. Appeals allowed — Candidature cancellations set aside — Directions for appointment against available or future vacancies with seniority based on merit. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a candidate's candidature be rejected solely for failing to produce original certificates at the time of interview if they are otherwise meritorious?
No. If the candidates have scored higher marks than the last selected candidate and the non-production is a technicality, such rejection is considered improper and unjustified. (Para 9 , 16 )
7. Does the requirement to submit original certificates at the interview stage relate to the core eligibility or qualification of a candidate?
The court observed that the requirement to submit originals is not related to qualification or eligibility, as verification and vigilance reports are typically obtained by the State before appointment or during probation. (Para 13 )
8. How should candidates be accommodated when vacancies in their specific reserved categories are filled but they are found entitled to appointment?
The State may adjust such candidates against future vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies in the respective categories to accommodate meritorious candidates. (Para 17 )
9. Does a court order issued in ignorance of a superior court's interim orders remain enforceable?
No. Directions issued by a lower court that are in direct conflict with interim orders passed by a superior court cannot be granted or used to claim parity. (Para 28 , 29 )
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 orders issued on different dates. The Appellants had admittedly secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories but the Commission had cancelled their candidature for want of fulfilment of the conditions required as per the interview call letter.
4. One of the conditions required was to submit the originals of certificates detailed therein which included educational certificates, Caste certificates if claiming any benefit of reservation, No Objection Certificates of previous employer, Character Certificate of the last attended College/University and other certificates of residence etc. at the time of interview. Some of the candidates could not produce the original Certificates as required, as a result of which their candidatures were cancelled by the Commission vide their meeting dated 27.11.2019. In its 102nd meeting of the Commission organised on 27.11.2019, the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of their educational certificates, mark sheets, documents etc. presented at the time of the interview which was conducted in between the dates of 21.10.2019 to 27.10.2019 under the 30th Bihar Judicial Service Examination (Advertisement No. 06/2018), the Commission examined the short comings and the non-fulfilment of the requirement of the production of the original documents/certificates at the time of the interview and after dealing with each of the candidates, found deficit in fulfilling the said requirement and cancelled the candidature of as many as 58 candidates for different reasons.
5. Some of these candidates approached the Patna High Court by way of different Writ Petitions, either singly or jointly. Division bench of the Patna High Court vide Judgment impugned did not find favour with such candidates and dismissed their petitions. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Patna High Court, the present Special Leave Petitions have been preferred by eight candidates. It is not in issue that the ground for rejection of the candidature of these candidates was only and only non-production of the original Certificates. The Commission has admitted these eight Appellants before us have scored higher marks from the last selected candidates in their respective categories.
6. Out of these eight candidates, five namely Mayank Kumar Pandey (SLP (C) No. 15819/21), Aarav Jain (SLP (C) No. 10776/21), Ashish Chandra (SLP (C) No. 16198/21), Siddharth Sharma (SLP (C) No. 11089/21) and Sanjay Kumar Mishra (SLP (C) No. 11089/21) belong to the General/ Unserved Category. Sumit Kumar (SLP (C) No. 15809/21) belongs to the EBC Category, Anita Kumar (SLP (C) No. 809/22) belongs to SC Category and Anand Raj (SLP (C) No.15819/21) belongs to BC Category.
7. With respect to these 8 candidates named above, the following shortcomings/deficiencies were noticed by the Commission in its meeting dated 27.11.2019 :
i. Aarav Jain failed to produce the original ch
