Deals & Matter

Aarav Jain & Ors. vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.

Commercial Arbitration

Aarav Jain & Ors. vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Issue

The main issue in this case revolves around the cancellation of candidature of eight successful candidates, including Aarav Jain, for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). Despite scoring higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, these candidates were disqualified solely for non-submission of original documents at the time of the interview. The key legal question was whether such disqualification was valid and justified, given that the documents were subsequently submitted and were not found to be incorrect.

Petitioners' Side (Appellants’ Arguments)

The petitioners, eight candidates who had cleared the selection process, argued that:

1. Submission of Attested Copies:

All candidates had submitted self-attested copies of required documents during the interview process.

2. Originals Submitted Later:

Although they could not produce the originals at the time of the interview, the originals were submitted within a few days and before the Commission’s final decision dated 27.11.2019.

3. No Dispute Over Authenticity:

The Commission or the State never disputed the authenticity or validity of the documents eventually submitted.

4. Non-submission Was Technical:

The failure to bring originals was a technical lapse, not a reflection of fraud, ineligibility, or dishonesty.

5. High Merit:

Each of the petitioners had secured more marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories. Disqualifying them purely on procedural grounds would defeat the merit principle.

6. No Clause Mandating Disqualification:

The advertisement or rules did not mandate automatic disqualification for failure to produce originals at the interview. Further, final verification is always conducted post-appointment during probation and service verification.

7. Harsh & Unreasonable Action:

Cancelling their selection was termed excessively harsh, especially when vacancies still existed and their performance in exams was superior.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

Varun Singh, founding partner at Foresight Law

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

View More
Blogs

The digital transformation of healthcare in India

Public procurement plays a vital role in

View More

Respondents’ Side (BPSC and State of Bihar)

Strict Compliance Required

The recruitment advertisement and interview call letters clearly required submission of original documents at the interview stage. The candidates were aware of these terms.

No Discretion to Relax Norms

The Commission did not have the authority to relax the mandatory requirements. Any leniency would violate the sanctity and fairness of the recruitment process.

Uniform Procedure Followed

Rules were applied uniformly to all candidates, and those who failed to comply faced cancellation. Making exceptions would set a wrong precedent.

Risk of Manipulation

Allowing post-facto submission of documents could encourage manipulation or irregularities in future recruitments.

Court’s Observations

After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court observed:

  • Technical Rejection Was Unjustified:

The Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical grounds, despite the fact that original documents were submitted shortly thereafter, before the final meeting of the Commission.

  • Merit Should Prevail:

The Court emphasized that the petitioners were more meritorious than the last selected candidates. Rejecting them despite fulfilling all other eligibility criteria, including submission of valid documents later, was disproportionately harsh.

  • Vacancies Still Exist:

There were still five vacancies in the General Category, and the Court noted that adjusting the appellants would not disturb the appointment of already selected candidates.

  • Recruitment Objectives:

The purpose of recruitment is to fill vacancies with the most deserving candidates. The rigid adherence to formality should not come at the cost of substance and fairness.

  • No Allegation of Fraud or Misrepresentation:

Importantly, there was no allegation that any document was fake, invalid, or misrepresented, and the Commission acknowledged that the candidates later complied fully.

  • Power to Vary Vacancies:

The Court highlighted that the State Government has the power to vary or borrow vacancies from future cycles to accommodate deserving candidates, especially in exceptional cases like this.

  • Jyoti Joshi’s Intervention Rejected:

An intervenor (Jyoti Joshi) sought appointment based on a High Court order. The Court held that her claim was in conflict with its interim orders and was not sustainable. Her application was dismissed.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Patna High Court’s decision and the Commission’s resolution dated 27.11.2019. The Court issued the following directives:

  • Five General Category Appellants

 (Mayank Kumar Pandey, Aarav Jain, Ashish Chandra, Siddharth Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Mishra) shall be appointed immediately against the five existing general category vacancies.

  • For the three remaining appellants

(Sumit Kumar – EBC, Anita Kumar – SC, Anand Raj – BC), the State may either adjust them against current vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies under Advertisement No. 6 of 2018. The discretion to manage this was left to the State.

  • No Disturbance to Existing Appointees:

The judgment would not affect already appointed judicial officers.

  • Seniority & Service Benefits:
  1. Appellants would get seniority based on their merit.
  2. No arrears of salary for the past period would be paid.
  3. They would be entitled to salary from the date of joining and notional benefits such as increments and continuity for future promotions.
  • Interim Orders Honoured:

The Court confirmed that its earlier interim orders protecting vacancies were valid and binding.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top