ÈÄREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 9092 OF 2012

ASHOK KUMAR & ANR .....APPELLANTS

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 16 December 2011 which

allowed a Letters Patent Appeal instituted by the ninth to fourteenth

respondents. The Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the

learned Single Judge dated 9 November 2010 by which selections made by

promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts in the District Court

of

2

Muzaffarpur were quashed. The Division Bench has held that the original

petitioners who succeeded before the learned Single Judge in challenging the

process of promotion were estopped from doing so, having unsuccessfully

participated in the selection process.

2 On 2 December 2003, the office of the District and Sessions Judge,

Muzaffarpur issued General order No. 204 of 2003 inviting applications for

promotion to six Class III posts from amongst Class IV employees of th

e

Civil Court at Muzaffarpur. The selection was to be made on the basis of a

fresh written test and interview. Twenty seven candidates appeared in the

written examination which was conducted on 20 April 2004 of whom

fourteen qualified. These candidates were interviewed on 7 July 2004. Eighty

five marks were fixed for the written examination and fifteen marks for the

interview. The appointment committee selected six candidates on the basis of

merit for appointment to the six Class III posts by promotion. The select list

was submitted to the High Court on 26 July 2004. The High Court declined to

approve the select list on the ground that the marks allotted for the

written

examination were not in accordance with the Court⬠"!s General letter No. 1 of

1995 and the Rules of 1992, 1998 and 2001 covering Bihar Civil Court Staff.

By a letter dated 19 August 2004, the Registrar (Administration) directed the

3

District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to hold a fresh examination fixing

ninety marks for the written examination by treating the qualifying marks as

forty five.

3 Accordingly, a fresh General order (171 of 2004) was issued by the

District and Sessions Judge on 8 October 2004. The General order

specifically adverted to the communication dated 9 August 2004 of the High

Court and stipulated that a fresh written examination comprising ninety

marks would be held (with qualifying marks of forty five) which would

be

followed by an interview carrying ten marks. Pursuant to this, a written test

was held on 7 November 2004 followed by an interview on 12 December

2004. Results were declared on 31 December 2004 and the ninth to

fourteenth respondents were appointed on Class III posts. All the appellants

participated in the process of selection.

4 The two appellants and four other unsuccessful candidates then filed a

Writ Petition before the High Court in order to challenge the General order

dated 8 October 2004 and the order of appointment dated 31 December 2004.

The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since

under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry eighty

five

marks and the interview, fifteen marks. Counter affidavits were filed in

4

response to the Writ Petition by the Registrar of the Civil Court at

Muzaffarpur, the Registrar General of the High Court and