Summary
The Supreme Court set aside rejection of three successful Bihar judicial-service candidates for non-production of original certificates at interview. Under the governing rules, timely possession of eligibility was distinct from later production of proof, and original production was directory. Following Aarav Jain and the available vacancy-adjustment arrangement, it directed accommodation in the respective examinations. Relief was expressly confined to these timely litigating appellants on the peculiar facts.
Issues
- Whether non-production of original certificates at interview justified rejection despite existing qualifications and proof.
- Whether the candidates could be accommodated despite the asserted absence of vacancies.
- Whether the relief extended to other candidates who had not timely approached the Court.
Provisions considered
- Rules 7(b) and 9, including second note, Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955Good character and required qualification had to exist, but certified true copies were contemplated and production of originals at viva voce was directory under the language of the rules. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 17, 19)
Held
- Eligibility and its proof are distinct. The character certificates existed, true copies were on record, and the governing language did not make original production at interview mandatory. Rejection solely for non-production at that time was unwarranted. The law-degree candidate likewise possessed the qualification though issuance of her certificate was delayed. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The two candidates from the thirtieth examination were similarly situated to the successful Aarav Jain appellants and had marks above their category cut-offs. They could not be denied equivalent relief merely because those examination vacancies had been filled. The authorities’ affidavit and submissions supported accommodation using the available adjustment arrangement. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- For Aditi in the thirty-first examination, an EWS vacancy was to be adjusted from that examination or the next, with benefits corresponding to Aarav Jain. Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra were to be accommodated as successful candidates of the thirtieth examination; Sweety’s later selection did not defeat that relief. (¶¶ 22, 26, 27, 28)
- The directions were expressly confined to the peculiar circumstances and appellants who had approached the courts in time. Other similarly situated candidates who had not acted within a reasonable time could not claim the same further benefit. (¶ 29)
Result
All three appeals allowed without costs. High Court judgments set aside; appellants directed to be accommodated in their respective examinations with Aarav Jain benefits, including the directed EWS vacancy adjustment for Aditi. Pending applications disposed of.