Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, PARTHA SARTHY
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar – Respondent
Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The State of Bihar and the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short the Commission) and others have challenged the judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1151 of 2024, whereby the State of Bihar and the Director of Secondary Education have been directed to identify the number of vacancies that had arisen due to non-appointment of the candidates recommended by the Commission as Primary Teachers for Class-I to V pursuant to Advertisement No. 26/2023 for want of requisite qualifications and convey the same to the Commission and on receipt of such information, the Commission has been directed to publish a supplementary result in order of merit from the selection held pursuant to Advertisement No. 26/2023, subject to the candidate(s) having secured the cut-off marks and meets the cut-off date of birth prescribed by the Commission.
3. The respondents/applicants had approached the High Court for issuance of a mandamus to the Commission to publish a supplementary/revised merit list for teachers in Primary Schools for Class-I to V in Advertisement No. 26/2023, dated 30.05.20
The B.P.S.C. is required to publish a supplementary merit list for vacancies arising from ineligible candidates, affirming that recommendation does not guarantee appointment and emphasizing the need ....
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The expiration of a select list due to inaction and erroneous decision of the authorities cannot deprive a selected candidate of appointment.
Earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
