IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVAJI PANDEY, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Ratnakar Dubey S/o Ravi Prakash Dhar Dubey – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2172 of 2020
Decided On : 05-05-2021
Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Quashing of final result - Judicial Services Competitive Examination declared issued by Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller pursuant to advertisement for appointment to Civil Judge (Junior Division) to extent to which candidature of petitioners have been cancelled arbitrarily by the commission for non-production of some original documents at time of interview despite excellent performance of petitioners in the entire selection process - Appropriate Writs directing the respondent authority that if petitioners qualify for final list of candidates in 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, declare them successful and include them in final merit list or in an addendum list of successful candidates - For issuance of order/direction or Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing respondent commission to prepare and publish updated/revised result of 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination after considering candidature of petitioners since, in sheer violation of Principle of Natural Justice, candidature of the petitioners have been cancelled by Commission unilaterally and arbitrarily without-affording any opportunity to petitioners to clarify any of the objections on basis of which their candidature was cancelled by Commission - For issuance of order/direction or appropriate writ for directing respondent authority to keep 03 post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vacant during pendency of present writ application and further for restraining commission from making recommendation either in unreserved category or reserved category until disposal of present writ application - Hon'ble Court is further prayed to adjudicate and hold that action of respondent authority withholding result and cancelling candidature of petitioners is highly arbitrary, illegal, cavalier and contrary to principles of justice and fair play - Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/orders be passed, direction/directions be given in facts and circumstances of this case for which petitioner may be found entitled.
Finding of the Court:
Court after dealing in detail with contentions raised by petitioner in case of Aarav Jain (supra) concluded that in terms of the advertisement, candidate was not only required to be in possession of certificates on date of filling up of on-line application form but as per clause 10 of Advertisement was mandatorily required to produce same at time of interview - Petitioner having admitted that he could not produce original certificate on date of interview, this Court held that Commission committed no wrong in rejecting candidature of petitioner - Petitioners in instant case also have categorically admitted in paragraph nos. 14, 15 and 16 of writ application that they could not produce all original certificates/documents at time of interview - Case of petitioners stand on a similar-footing and is fully covered by decision in case of Aarav Jain (supra) - So far as other contentions of petitioners with respect to terms of advertisement, grant of opportunity to some others, violation of Art 14 of Constitution and hostile discrimination against petitioners are concerned, same have been dealt with and answered against petitioner in case of Aarav Jain (supra) - Court finds no illegality in decision of Commission cancelling candidature of petitioners.
Result: Writ Application Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission, Mr. Piyush Lal, learned counsel for the Patna High Court and Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ application for the following reliefs:-
(ii) For issuance of order/direction/Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writs to direct the respondent commission to immediately allow and process the candidature of the petitioners who had submitted all requisite documents showing their eligibility for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and thereafter they were allowed to appear in the interview and thereafter their medical was also conducted.
(iii) For issuance or order/direction or writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing the respondent authority to release the final marks of the petitioners before further appointment process takes place.
(iv) For issuance of order/direction or Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writs directing the respondent authority that if the petitioners qualify for the final list of candidates in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, declare them successful and include them in the final merit list or in an addendum list of successful candidates.
(v) For issuance of order/direction or Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing the respondent commission to prepare and publish the updated/revised result of the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination after considering the candidature of the petitioners since, in sheer violation of the Principle of Natural Justice, the candidature of the petitioners have been cancelled by the Commission unilaterally and arbitrarily without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to clarify any of the objections on the basis of which their candidature was cancelled by the Commission.
(vi) For issuance of order/direction or appropriate writ for directing the respondent authority to keep 03 post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vacant during the pendency of the present writ application and further for restraining the commission from making recommendation either in unreserved category or reserved category until disposal of the present writ application.
(vii) This Hon'ble Court is further prayed to adjudicate and hold that the action of the respondent authority withholding the result and cancelling the candidature of the petitioners is highly arbitrary, illegal, cavalier and contrary to the principles of justice and fair play.
(viii) Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/orders be passed, direction/directions be given in the facts and circumstances of this case for which the petitioner may be found entitled.”
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter refer to as ‘the Commission’) came out with Advertisement no. 6 of 2018 for holding the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination for filling up 349 vacant posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). All the petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Commission in two parts on 27.11.2018 and 28.11.2018. Having cleared the prelimin
Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
B. Gopalaiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Even if some persons have been given the opportunity to produce their documents, which cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the terms of the advertisement, the same would be of n....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to the terms of advertisements for competitive examinations and upholds the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit re....
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 bene....
The main legal point established is that candidates must strictly adhere to the stipulated requirements for possession and production of certificates at the time of application and interview, and any....
Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cancellation of candidature of candidates on technical grounds would be improper, unjustified and not warranted.
Adherence to stipulated selection procedure and lack of relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement.
Competitive examination - Successful completion of any competitive examination, which are having candidates of different categories based upon many factors like physically handicapped, vertical or ho....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.