Summary
In the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination for 349 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), eight candidates who had scored more than the last selected candidate in their categories had their candidature cancelled by the Bihar Public Service Commission because they had not produced certain original certificates — character certificates, a law degree, a no-objection certificate from an employer, a Bar Council affiliation certificate or a caste certificate in the proper form — at the interview, although they had submitted self-attested copies then and the originals within days, before the Commission's decision. The Patna High Court dismissed their writ petitions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Issues
- Whether a public service commission may cancel the candidature of otherwise meritorious and eligible candidates solely because original certificates were not produced at the interview, when attested copies were furnished then and the originals shortly afterwards and no certificate was found to be incorrect.
- How such candidates are to be accommodated when vacancies under the advertisement exist in some categories but not others, and whether a third party can claim those vacancies under a later High Court direction contrary to the Supreme Court's interim orders.
Provisions considered
- Interview call letter condition requiring production of original certificates at the interview, Bihar Public Service Commission Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 (30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination)The condition is not related to qualification or eligibility; where attested copies were produced and the originals followed before the Commission's meeting, and the State in any case obtains verification and vigilance reports before appointment, non-production of originals at the interview could not be treated as mandatory so as to warrant cancellation. (¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 13, 16)
Held
- It is not the Commission's case that any certificate was incorrect; the appellants, who had scored higher than the last selected candidates in their categories and had submitted the originals within days of the interview, were rejected on a technical ground alone, which was improper, unjustified and not warranted. Filling vacancies with meritorious candidates would be an asset to the institution burdened with huge pendency. (¶¶ 8, 9, 16)
- The five unreserved-category appellants are to be adjusted against the five available vacancies; for the EBC, SC and BC appellants the State may adjust them against future vacancies or borrow one post each from future vacancies for the advertisement, the power to vary vacancies vesting in the employer, without disturbing serving officers appointed under the advertisement. (¶¶ 10, 17, 18)
- The appellants are entitled to seniority according to merit and to notional increments and benefits for the intervening period, but not to arrears of salary, which run from the date of joining. (¶ 19)
- The intervenor's claim to the vacancies under the Patna High Court's judgment of 09.02.2022 cannot be granted, that judgment having been passed in ignorance of and in conflict with this Court's interim orders keeping posts vacant, and she can claim no parity with the earlier wait-list candidate whose petition was allowed before those orders. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Commission's decision of 27.11.2019 cancelling the eight appellants' candidature and the Patna High Court's judgments dismissing their writ petitions set aside; appellants to be appointed and allowed to join forthwith with seniority as per merit but without arrears; the intervenor's application for directions rejected. No order as to costs.