Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Abhay Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Manoranjan Prasad Sinha - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1315 of 2019
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Saroj Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate
Recruitment criteria cannot be changed mid-process without valid permission; decisions must adhere to procedural fairness and the principles of non-arbitrariness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Bihar Outstanding Sportspersons Appointment Rules, 2009 - Challenge to appointment recommendations for clerks based on perceived merit and qualifications - The petitioner contended his superior qualifications were ignored in favor of less meritorious candidates - The court addressed the issues surrounding changes in selection criteria post-advertisement, emphasizing the primacy of the merit list and valid processes - The decision of the recruitment authority must adhere to principles of non-arbitrariness and transparency amidst the recruitment process - The petitioner argued that the criteria changes were arbitrary and illegal - The court found no basis for disturbing selections made based on valid authority's decisions - The petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and lack of merit. (Paras 3, 4, 15, 24, 27)
Findings of Court:
The selection process managed by the authorities adhered to established procedures, providing no grounds for intervention by the court.
Issues: Whether the changes to the selection criteria and their application after the final merit list publication were lawful considering procedural propriety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that recruitment criteria cannot be altered mid-process without valid reasons. The eligibility criteria and adherence to procedural fairness are critical in recruitment matters.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appointment criteria based on merit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against non-consideration of championship status. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. the prohibition against arbitrary changes to selection criteria mid-process. (Para 15 , 22) |
| 4. state's defense based on delay and policy decision. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 5. senior position in merit list critical for appointments. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. eligibility criteria must remain consistent throughout. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. delay in claims undermines eligibility for relief. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. the standards concerning delays in claiming service-related rights. (Para 29) |
| 9. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is represented through Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned Advocate, the State through Mr. Saroj Sharma, learned Advocate and Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the private respondent no.16.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents no. 13, 14 and 15.
3. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 06.08.2015 contained in Memo No. 11368 to the extent whereby the recommendation has been made in favour of the private respondents for their appointment as Clerks; notwithstanding the fact that they are less meritorious and qualified than the petitioner as explicit in the gradation list, under the Special Quota Sports Category (Chess).
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has preferred Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024 by adding bundle of reliefs, inter alia, seeking declaration from this Court that the change in selection criteria made by the respondents subsequent to issuance of the advertisement dated 08.12.2009 as well as after initiation of the selection process as arbitrary and illegal; and further to declare that bifurcation of National Games into A and B only pertains to Clause-2(9) of the Bihar Outstanding Sportspersons Appointment Rules, 2009 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 2009’) relating to personal/individual competition.
5. The brief facts, germane for adjudication of the present lis, are that the Government of Bihar, exercising its power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified the Rules, 2009 for appointment of Outstanding Sportspersons. The aforesaid Rules, 2009 came to be notified on 18.12.2009 vide Notification No. 6086, which has further been amended vide Notification No. 3499 dated 30.03.2011. In pursuant to the said Rules, an advertisement was published on 31.03.2011 inviting applications for appointment of Outstanding Sportspersons on the post of Group-C and D of the State Government.
6. Having been found eligible, the petitioner applied for appointment against the said advertisement under the discipline of “Chess”. A provisional, sports wise, list was published on 13.07.2011 by the General Administrative Department, Bihar, Patna, wherein the name of the petitioner figured at serial no.2. Thereafter, objections were invited and after considering the same, the final list was published on 16.11.2011. The name of the petitioner found place at serial no.3 in the final list. The copy of the provisional as well as final merit list have been placed on record as Annexures-P2 and P3. Notwithstanding the finalization of the merit list, the petitioner had not been called for and conversely appointment of others took place in the discipline of Chess.
7. Faced with such a situation, the petitioner made a verification and thereupon he came to know that there was a confusion among the respondent authorities with regard to the status of Championship between National-A and National-B.
8. To dispel such confusion, the Joint Secretary, General Administrative Department vide Letter No. 2105 dated 08.02.2012 requested the General Secretary of All India Chess Federation to clarify the status of players, who participated against donation in National-B Championship.
9. In response thereto
