Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anshuman, J.
Ravikant Kumar Verma Son of Vijay Prasad Verma and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Ld. Registrar General and ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11990 of 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajoday Satyjeet, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey (AC to AAG-11), Mr. Piyush Lal, Adv.
Writ petitions must include necessary parties; failure to do so renders the petition non-maintainable, regardless of the merits of the case.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Recruitment Process - The petitioners sought to quash the merit list and results of the Assistant recruitment examination, alleging violations of recruitment rules and lack of transparency in the selection process. The court emphasized the necessity of including all necessary parties in the writ petition. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Minimum Qualifying Marks - The court noted that the petitioners argued against the imposition of minimum qualifying marks in the interview, referencing prior judgments that supported their position. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the recruitment process for Assistant posts, claiming changes to rules post-advertisement and lack of published results.
Findings of Court:
The court found the writ petition not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence for claims made.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the recruitment process and the necessity of including all selected candidates in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate compliance with procedural requirements, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anshuman, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-
I. For issuance of direction for quashing the published merit list and result vide its Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024.
II. For directing the respondent no.1 to publish the result and marks break-up of candidates appeared in computer proficiency test.
III. For issuance of direction to respondent no.1 to conduct the interview on the basis of result declared in computer proficiency test without having qualifying criteria in interview as per the rule of 2021.
IV. For directing the respondent to declare a final merit list including the marks break-up of all the candidates in public domain with immediate effect.
V. For directing the respondent to consider the petitioners in the light of Government of India memorandum dated 09.10.2015 and to prepare a fresh merit list of all the candidates including the petitioners being giving the minimum or average passing marks in stage-IV interview to the petitioners and then considering the petitioners for the purpose of identifying the successful candidates selected to such extent.
VI. For quashing the part of the notification dated 03.02.2023 issued by respondent no.1 which requires minimum qualifying marks in stage-IV and to direct the respondent to prepare the merit list considering all the candidates as per the total marks obtained them in all stages in the light of judgment of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 and in case of Aalma Vs. Delhi High Court in Civil Appeal No.6353 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.1 has issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant recruitment examination, 2023 vide its Advertisement No. PHC/01/2023 dated 03.02.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioners in selection process have changed the rule of the game after publication of the advertisement and prior to the result. Counsel further submits that the first objection is that the result was not published in public domain and his second contention is that in the rule which is Annexure-P/2 in Part-IV (Rule 6(A)) under Serial No.8, there was no condition of minimum qualification was inserted and examination has to be taken place by virtue of appearance of a person having certain minimum qualification followed by written test followed by computer proficiency test and interview. It is nowhere mentioned in the rule that there shall be minimum cut-off marks in any of the examination. But, in the selection process, minimum cut-off marks has been fixed which is in gross violation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide Annexure-P/5, in the test of computer proficiency, the minimum qualifying marks in word processing test, spread-sheet test and internet proficiency have been divided on the basis of maximum and minimum marks. Counsel submits that vide Annexure-P/8, there was a clear cut undertaking made by the Registrar General, Patna High Court that the detailed result shall be published. But it has never come in the public domain. Counsel submits that similarly in the interview, the minimum marks has been fixed. Counsel submits that under RTI (Right To Information), it has been informed that 148 candidates were disqualified in the computer proficiency test, but interview of all candidates have been taken independent of this point that some of the persons have not completed the computer proficiency test. Counsel relied on a judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 and submits that in the said judgment, it has been categorically held in paragraph no.17 which states that:-
“selection to the post involved herein has not been completed in any subsequent years to the selection process under challenge. Therefore, in the instant case, in absence of any statutory requ
