Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 150
PATNA HIGH COURT
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J
Snehi Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5493 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15520 of 2021 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13884 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13970 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14202 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Manish Kumar (G.P.-4), Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
Court mandates the Bihar Public Service Commission to correctly implement the 35% horizontal reservation for women in recruitment processes, ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions and prior directives, thus addressing systemic discrepancies.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 15(3) - Article 16(1) and (4) - Recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) - Writ petitions challenging the omission and cut-off marks set by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) concerning horizontal reservation for female candidates - Petitioners argue that 35% horizontal reservation was not honored as per Letter No. 2342 dated 15.02.2016, leading to fewer women being selected than mandated. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 9, 109)
(B) Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation - Distinction between horizontal and vertical reservations clarified as well as the procedural mandates for implementing horizontal reservations, which should accommodate the specific quota for women candidates across all categories. (Para 103)
(C) Rectification of Selection Process - Court directs recalculation and setting of a proper cut-off mark including the 35% horizontal reservation quota in the selection process, confirming the necessity of statistical compliance with the reservation policy. (Para 111)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The process adopted by the BPSC deviated from the outlined reservation guidelines, necessitating corrective measures to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions and state directives. (E)
Result: Each petition disposed of with directions for the BPSC to reevaluate the selection process in line with established legal frameworks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the petitioners' candidature (Para 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner's contentions on reservation violation (Para 7 , 12) |
| 4. bpsc's counterarguments and legal basis (Para 10 , 34) |
| 5. legal interpretation of horizontal reservation (Para 33 , 68 , 106) |
| 6. disposition of writ petitions with directions (Para 111) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07.02.2025
1. These batch of writ petitions having similar set of questions of law and fact have been heard together and this court proceeds to deliver the following judgment to dispose of aforementioned writ petitions by a composite judgment
2. In all the aforementioned writ petitions the petitioners appeared for selection and appointment the post of assistant engineer (civil) on the basis of an advertisement bearing number 2 of 2017 issued by Bihar Public Service Commission on 3rd march 2017, which was subsequently amended by another notification having same advertisement number dated 6th February 2019, whereby and where under the number of posts were increased by the BPSC in consultation with the concerned department of the state government.
3. There are certain factual differences in respect of in the cases of the petitioner which I propose to discuss at the relevant point of time.
4. In all the writ petitions the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution for the following reliefs:
1. For a direction upon the Respondent Bihar Public Service Commission to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) pursuant to Advt. No, 02/2017 and recommend the name of the Petitioner for the said post as Petitioner has been illegally omitted from the final result by denying the benefits of 35% horizontal reservation for female candidates under Letter No. 2342 dated 15.02.2016 issued by the General Administrative Department, Bihar.
2. To pass any other order/orders in shape of a consequential relief to which the Petitioner may be found to be legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand.
5. It is on record that in the above mention writ petition, the contesting parties have submitted series of affidavits which would be profitable to discuss in brief chronologically.
6. Petitioner, namely Sushma Kumari filed the writ application under Article 226 on 31.08.2021. The fact in brief is that the Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), under Unreserved Category, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2017 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission. It is stated that a total number of 1284 vacancies under different departments of the State of Bihar was advertised vide Advertisement No. 02/2017. Petitioner was allotted Roll No. 213988 in the selection process and she cleared the preliminary examination conducted on 15.09.2018. Thereafter, a Notification dated 06.02.2019 was published by the Commission inviting applications from candidates who had cleared preliminary examination. Further, terms and conditions of the Advertisement No. 02/2017 was reiterated in the said Notification. There is a specific stipulation in the aforesaid Advertisement that 35% horizontal reservation for women would be maintained in light of Letter No. 2342 dated 15.02.2016 issued by the General Administrative Department, Bihar. It is further clarified in the said Letter that in case of any vacancy reserved for female being unfilled can be filled in by male candidates. Petitioner appeared in mains examination from 27.03.2019 to 31.03.2019 and was subsequently declared successful in the mains examination vide result dated 24.01.2021. Petitioner was called for interview on 18.03.2021 and performed at par with other candidate. Name of the Petitioner was omitted from the Final Result dated 14.07.2021 and only 1240 candidates were declared successful against 1284 vacancies. It is stated that a bare perusal of the final result would r
