SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 991

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Sweety Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6072, 6073, 6074 of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 9964, 12637 of 2022, SLP (C) No. 16749 of 2023
Decided On : 22-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aditya Singh-1, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Rai, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR Ms. Srishti Prakash, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Production of original certificates at the time of interview is not mandatory but directory – If a person possesses eligibility before date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later.

Headnote:

Service Law – Appointment on post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – [Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment), Rules, 1955 – Rules 7(b) and 9] – Rejection of candidatures of appellants due to non-production of original certificate at the time of interview – Candidate should possess character certificate and if required, it may be made available at the time of interview – Production of original certificates at the time of interview is not mandatory but directory – If a person possesses eligibility before date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later – In present case, proof is available and true photocopies were on record – Appellants’ candidature could not have been rejected merely because original was not produced before Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory – Appellants cannot be discriminated by not granting relief merely because of non-availability of vacancies in previous examination – Impugned judgments passed by High Court set aside – This judgment is passed in peculiar facts of case to mitigate plea of discrimination to candidates who knocked door of court well within time – Similarly situated candidates would not be entitled to claim same benefit further because they have not come before this Court within a reasonable time. (Paras 14, 18, 19, 24, 28 and 29)

Facts of the case:

Appellants Sweety Kumari, a candidate of Scheduled Caste (SC) category and Vikramaditya Mishra, unreserved category candidate, appeared in 30th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination conducted for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Candidature of appellants was rejected by official respondents on account of non-furnishing of original character certificates. By impugned judgments, the High Court upheld decision of official Respondents.

Findings of Court:

Appellants Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra be accommodated being successful candidate in 30th Examination and appellant Aditi be accommodated being a successful candidate in 31st Examination.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the instant three appeals, the judgments passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Sweety Kumari vs. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 18038/2021) dated 03.11.2021; Vikramaditya Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 3707/2020) dated 04.09.2021 and Aditi vs. Bihar Public Service Commission Patna and Others. (CWJC No. 15325/2022) dated 19.04.2023 are under challenge. By the said judgments, the High Court upheld the decision of the official Respondents. The candidature of appellants was rejected by the official respondents on account of non-furnishing of original character certificates (in case of Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra) and law degree (in case of Aditi) respectively.

3. The High Court in the first two cases dismissed the writ petitions relying upon the order passed in the case of a similarly situated candidate titled as Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others (CWJC No. 24282/2019) decided on 04.05.2021. Whereas in the third case, the High Court while dealing with the case of the appellant Aditi and one similarly placed candidate named Ankita, through a common order found that though the appellant Aditi has her case on merits at par with Ankita, but due to non-availability of the vacancy in EWS category the relief as granted to Ankita cannot be extended to appellant Aditi.

4. The appellants Sweety Kumari, a candidate of Scheduled Caste (SC) category and Vikramaditya Mishra, unreserved category candidate, appeared in 30th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “30th Examination”) conducted for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to an Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018/23.08.2018. Both the candidates have been declared successful in the preliminary examination vide the results declared on 07.01.2019 and main examination vide result declared on 05.10.2019 after obtaining more marks than the cut-off for their respective category. Pursuant to this, they were called for interview vide letter dated 15.12.2019.

5. The candidature of the appellants Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra was rejected on account of not producing the original character certificates at the time of interview. True photocopies were produced. However, while declaring the result on 27.11.2019/29.11.2019, the candidature of the present two appellants as well as of one, Aarav Jain were rejected by a common communication.

6. On other hand, appellant Aditi applied in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in furtherance to the 31st Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “31st Examination”). She secured 501 marks, whereas cut-off was 499. Her candidature was rejected on the ground of not having the law degree certificate on the date of interview. The candidature of the similarly situated candidate Ankita was also cancelled on the same ground. However, on the filing of separate writ petitions which was disposed of by a common order, Ankita was granted relief by the High Court due to availability of vacancy in SC category, but Aditi was denied relief due to non-availability of the vacancy in the EWS category.

7. In view of the foregoing factual scenario, the questions that fall for consideration before us are as under:

    (i) Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the appellants due to non-production of the original certificate at the time of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BPSC”) is justified?

    (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, what relief can be granted to the appellants?

8. Undisputed facts of the case succinctly put are that the appellants Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra appeared in 30th Examination in furtherance to the advertisement No. 6 of 2018 published on 21.08.2018/23.08.2018 by the BPSC to fill up the 349 vacancies. The said advertisement was issue


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top