Summary
Candidates who had not taken or had failed the physical test for Bihar Sub-Inspector recruitment could not claim appointment by parity with 133 candidates specially exempted under earlier Article 142 orders. That relief arose from a peculiar fourteen-year litigation history and was expressly declared non-precedential. Earlier permission to make representations did not create a right to further litigation upon rejection. The Article 32 writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether exceptional relief granted to 133 candidates created a parity-based appointment entitlement.
- Whether permission to make representations supported renewed proceedings after rejection.
Held
- The earlier orders specifically classified 133 candidates for exceptional treatment under Article 142 and expressly denied precedential effect. Petitioners who had not undertaken or had failed the physical test did not otherwise establish an entitlement to appointment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Extending the exemption to all similarly unsuccessful or non-participating candidates would perpetuate the recruitment litigation, potentially encompassing more than a thousand candidates. The exceptional order did not support that result. (¶ 18)
- The earlier order allowed representations to the State’s good conscience but expressly stated that rejection would not give rise to court proceedings or appeals. It supplied no basis for the relief sought under Article 32. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
All writ petitions dismissed; claimed parity-based appointment and exemption relief refused.