Patna High Court Sets Aside Order for Supplementary Teacher Result, Upholds BPSC 's Discretion

Patna: The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling concerning teacher recruitment, has set aside a single judge's order that directed the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to publish a supplementary result for primary teacher vacancies arising from Advertisement No. 26/2023 (TRE-I).

The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy , allowed the appeal filed by the State of Bihar and the BPSC (LPA No.1030 of 2024), emphasizing the recruiting agency's discretion in filling posts and the lack of an absolute right to appointment for candidates.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition (CWJC No.1151 of 2024) filed by several teacher aspirants (respondents, led by Dhirendra Kumar ). They had participated in the selection process for 67,066 Primary School Teacher (Class I-V) posts advertised under Advt. No. 26/2023. While the BPSC recommended 62,653 candidates, the petitioners, despite securing the minimum qualifying marks, were not selected as they did not meet the cut-off date of birth criterion used as a tie-breaker.

The petitioners argued that numerous vacancies remained unfilled or arose subsequently because: 1. Some selected candidates were found ineligible during document verification (lacked requisite CTET/D.El.Ed qualifications). 2. Some candidates selected for multiple posts (Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary) chose higher positions, leaving primary posts vacant. 3. The initial recommendation was less than the advertised number.

They sought a direction for the BPSC to publish a supplementary merit list against these vacancies, particularly those arising from ineligibility, instead of carrying them forward to the next recruitment cycle (TRE-II and TRE-III).

Single Judge's Order

The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.07.2024, had directed the State Education Department to identify vacancies arising from the non-appointment of recommended candidates due to lack of qualifications and convey this to the BPSC. The BPSC was then directed to publish a supplementary result based on merit, subject to candidates meeting the cut-off marks and date of birth criteria.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Appellants (State of Bihar & BPSC): * Argued that determining cut-off marks and declaring results fall within the exclusive domain of the BPSC under Rule 7(iv) and 7(v) of the Bihar State School Teachers Rules, 2023, not the Education Department. * Stated that unfilled vacancies from TRE-I (Advt. No. 26/2023), including those from ineligible candidates, were already carried forward to TRE-II (Advt. No. 27/2023), and TRE-III was also underway. * Emphasized that a recruiting agency cannot be compelled to fill all advertised posts, especially if candidates don't meet the established merit criteria (including cut-off date of birth). * Crucially, submitted that none of the writ petitioners/respondents met the cut-off date of birth threshold required for selection, even though they matched the cut-off marks. This was confirmed via a communication from the BPSC to the Education Department dated 22.11.2024.

Respondents (Teacher Aspirants): * Reiterated that significant vacancies existed due to ineligible candidates and non-joiners, which should have been filled from the existing merit list before being carried forward. * Contended they fulfilled the essential qualification criteria and qualifying marks.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Division Bench meticulously examined the arguments and records. Key points in their reasoning included:

No Petitioner Met Cut-off: The Court accepted the BPSC's categorical statement that none of the respondents/writ petitioners qualified based on the established cut-off marks and the cut-off date of birth. Candidates senior in age who met both criteria were recommended.

Recruitment Agency's Discretion: The Bench reaffirmed the legal principle that while candidates have a right to be considered for appointment, they have no absolute legal right to appointment itself. The employer/recruiting agency (BPSC) has the discretion not to fill all posts.

Judicial Restraint: Citing established precedents like Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India , R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India , Food Corporation of India Vs. Bhanu Lodh , and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway , the court held that judicial interference in the recruitment process is unwarranted unless the decision not to fill posts is proven arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, or whimsical. No such grounds were established by the petitioners.

Vacancies Carried Forward: The court noted that the vacancies had been legitimately carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles (TRE-II and TRE-III).

> "It is not incumbent upon the employer to fill all posts but discretion not to appoint, must be exercised judiciously. Courts normally would not interfere with the discretion not to fill up posts but exercise of such discretion should not be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical," the bench observed, referencing relevant case law.

Finding no arbitrariness or mala fides in the BPSC's actions and noting that the petitioners did not meet the final selection criterion (date of birth cut-off), the Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge's directions could not be sustained.

Outcome: The appeal filed by the State of Bihar and the BPSC was allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2024 was set aside.