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

2021 Supreme(Pat) 962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVAJI PANDEY, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Aarav Jain, S/o. Shri Rakesh Jain - Appellant
Versus
The Bihar Public Service Commission and Others - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 24282 of 2019
Decided On : 04-05-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Mr. Piyush Lal, Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pranav Kumar.

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 relaxation of terms and conditions without due publication.

Headnote:

Character Certificate - Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination - Rules 7(b), 9, 10 of Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 - The petitioner's candidature was rejected for non-production/verification of the original character certificate on the date of interview. The Court found no ambiguity in the advertisement and upheld the rejection of the petitioner's candidature.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination and cleared the preliminary and main written examinations. However, his candidature was rejected for not producing the original character certificate at the interview, as required by the advertisement.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the clear terms of the advertisement, which mandated the production of original certificates at the time of interview. The Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was justified.

Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for non-production of the original character certificate was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the terms of the advertisement were unambiguous and required the production of original certificates at the time of interview. As the petitioner failed to comply with this requirement, the rejection of his candidature was upheld.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Pandey, 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 for the private respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for the following reliefs:

    "A. That the respondent Commission may be directed to immediately release the final mark of the petitioner before the further process of appointment takes place;

B. That if petitioner qualifies for the final list of the candidature in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, declares him successful into the final merit list or through addendum list of successful candidates.

C. That the respondent Commission may be directed to consider the representation dated 23.10.2019 and 26.10.2019 in which the original character certificate as mandated was submitted by the petitioner.

D. That the Hon'ble Court may award the cost in favour of the petitioner on ground of litigation cost, mental harassment and mental pain and agony caused to the petitioner. Or any other, order, direction by the Hon'ble Court in light of justice, equity and good conscience as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred 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 seats of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner applied and was allotted Roll no. 100345. He cleared the preliminary competitive examination and was called for the mains written examination. The petitioner appeared in the mains written examination and in the result published by the Commission on 5.10.2019, he was declared successful. As per the schedule declared by the Commission, the petitioner appeared for interview on 21.10.2019, however, in the final result declared by the Commission on 29.11.2019, the petitioner's candidature was shown as rejected along with 31 others for the reason of non production/verification of the documents.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that in the interview letter issued by the Commission on 18.10.2019, the letter mentioned in detail the documents which the candidates had to carry for verification at the time of interview. The petitioner having completed his LLB from the Campus Law Centre, Delhi in the Academic Session 2015-18 and being an aspirant for judicial service in the past, had appeared for different judicial examination held in different States. The petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi Bar Council with Enrolment no. D/6583/2018. At the time of interview the petitioner was required to carry, besides other documents as mentioned in the interview letter, the character certificate issued by the College/University where the candidate had last studied.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he called up the Joint Secretary-cum- Examination Controller of the Commission on telephone on 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 and with respect to the character certificate enquired as to whether the character certificate of SDM will suffice or did the candidates specifically need the character certificate issued from the College. It is stated by the petitioner that the Controller of Examination clarified that any character certificate with original copy will be sufficient. The petitioner accordingly appeared, his documents were verified and he was permitted to appear for the interview by the concerned authority of the Commission. The petitioner was carrying the original copy of character certificate dated16.1.2019 issued by the SDM, Rewari, the original copy of bonafide cum character certificate dated 23.7.2018 issued by the Faculty of Law, Delhi along with copy of character cert










            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