Summary
Candidates appointed in 2020 through Jharkhand's 6th Combined Civil Services Examination had their selection set aside by the High Court. It held that the qualifying Hindi/English paper's marks could not be counted, and that minimum qualifying marks had to be secured in each main-examination paper, not in aggregate. The Commission had prepared the merit list on total marks, following its past practice. The Supreme Court allowed the appointees' appeals. The proviso to Rule 16 of the 1951 Rules, requiring total marks to be counted for suitability, governs both clauses (a) and (b), and punctuation cannot control that reading. The advertisement was ambiguous and both views were possible, so the Commission's long-standing reading could not be upset two years after the appointments. Joy Guria concerned only the preliminary examination.
Issues
- Whether, under clauses 12 and 13 of the advertisement read with Rule 16 of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951, the main-examination merit list should be based on aggregate marks or on minimum qualifying marks in each paper
- Whether the proviso to Rule 16 applies to both clauses (a) and (b) or only to clause (b)
- Whether appointments made on the Commission's possible interpretation should be undone
Provisions considered
- Rules 16 and 17, Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 (as adopted by Jharkhand)The proviso to Rule 16, under which total written marks decide suitability, governs both clause (a) and clause (b). The merit list on aggregate marks was therefore a permissible reading. (¶¶ 27, 37, 38, 46)
Held
- Clause (a) of Rule 16 is general and clause (b) deals with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Read with Rule 17, the proviso requiring total written marks to decide suitability applies to both clauses, not to clause (b) alone. Punctuation is a minor aid to interpretation, especially in subordinate legislation, and cannot control a meaning otherwise evident. (¶¶ 37, 38, 46)
- Clauses 12 and 13 of the advertisement were ambiguous on whether qualifying marks applied to the aggregate or to each paper. The Commission's view and the High Court's were both possible, and neither could be ruled out. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 43)
- Following N. Suresh Nathan, where a long-standing practice rests on one possible construction of the rules, it should not be upset. The Commission had prepared merit lists on aggregate marks. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- The appointees had worked for about two years and completed probation through no fault of their own, and future selections are governed by the 2021 Rules. It would be unjust to let the State reverse course. Joy Guria concerned the preliminary examination and should not have shaped the reading of the main-examination scheme. (¶¶ 44, 45, 47)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment of 23.02.2022 was set aside, leaving the appointments intact; the connected transfer petition was dismissed; no costs.