Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Purnendu Singh
Randhir Kumar Rana Son of Late Pulkit Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Purnendu Singh, J.
Heard the parties.
2. The defect(s) as pointed out by the office are ignored.
3. The issue involved in all the writ applications are similar and at the request of the respective counsels, all are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
4. The petitioners have raised common questions that in spite of them having met out the objection, which was sought from the candidates/petitioners on account of alleged failure on their part that either some of the petitioners have not furnished the creamy layer certificates, domicile certificate, requisite total fee as per their respective categories, experience certificate etc. as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 21.09.2020 for alleged shortfall, they have not been called for interview, which will end on 24.02.2025.
5. The objection of the Bihar State University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") is basically on the proposition of law that once the advertisement has notified the last date of submitting documents and other supporting documents, the date must be given effect to and any short fall in non submission on or before the last date i.e. 02
Administrative authorities must adhere strictly to the terms of public advertisements regarding eligibility and selection, ensuring fairness and the principle of legitimate expectation, particularly ....
A candidate's legitimate expectation for appointment should be honored based on the rules in effect during the recruitment process, despite later amendments altering eligibility criteria.
Eligibility for employment cannot be retroactively altered post-selection without statutory basis, safeguarding candidates' rights under Articles 14 and 16.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The court upheld the Commission’s authority to conduct a second written examination to rectify previous evaluation errors, affirming the necessity for fair recruitment practices.
The court ruled that a fair evaluation in recruitment interviews is essential, asserting that absurd scoring practices cannot stand, and substantial justice prevails over technicalities of delay.
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
