Bihar Judicial Services Examination: Supreme Court Overrules BPSC’s Rejection of Candidates

The case before the Supreme Court involved the rejection of several candidates who had cleared the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). The primary reason for the rejection was the failure to produce original certificates at the time of the interview. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that their rejection was unjustified.

Background of the Case

The BPSC had issued Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 for the recruitment of 349 Civil Judges (Junior Division). The selection process involved a screening test, a written test, and an interview. After the completion of the selection process, 349 candidates were recommended for appointment, but some failed to join, resulting in vacancies.

The petitioners, despite scoring higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, were denied appointments due to their inability to produce original documents during the interview. The BPSC had rejected their candidatures during a meeting held on 27.11.2019. The affected candidates challenged this decision before the Patna High Court, which upheld BPSC’s stance. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments

All the required documents were submitted in attested copies during the interview, and the originals were provided within a few days thereafter.
Non-submission of original certificates at the time of the interview was a procedural lapse and did not affect their eligibility or qualifications.
The rejection of their candidature was arbitrary and deprived them of their rightful selection.
The High Court erred in dismissing their petitions, ignoring the fact that the petitioners had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates.
Appointments to government jobs always involve verification of documents before finalizing recruitment, and any missing documents could have been verified later.

Respondents’ Arguments (BPSC and State of Bihar)

The submission of original certificates was a mandatory requirement as per the advertisement, interview call letter, and selection process guidelines.
The petitioners were aware of the requirement and had ample time to arrange for the originals but failed to do so.
Allowing the petitioners to be appointed despite their failure to comply with the stipulated conditions would set a bad precedent and undermine recruitment rules.
The Patna High Court correctly upheld BPSC’s decision, considering it to be in line with the rules of selection.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict

The Supreme Court found BPSC’s rejection of the candidates to be unjustified and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The key observations of the Court were:

The candidates had already submitted attested copies of their certificates and subsequently produced the originals before the Commission’s final decision on 27.11.2019.
There was no allegation that the certificates were forged or incorrect, and rejecting candidates on purely technical grounds was unreasonable.
Public sector recruitments allow for document verification before appointments; hence, non-submission of originals at the time of the interview should not be a ground for disqualification.
There were available vacancies, and appointing deserving candidates would help fill judicial vacancies, benefiting the justice system.
Since five unreserved category vacancies were still available, the rejected candidates should be accommodated against them.
For the three candidates from reserved categories (EBC, SC, and BC), the State was directed to either adjust them against current vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court noted:

“The rejection of the candidates was improper, unjustified, and not warranted. The rejection of duly qualified and selected candidates on technical grounds does not serve the ends of justice.”

On document verification, the Court stated:

“The government carries out document verification before appointment. Even if the original certificates were not submitted at the time of the interview, they were available later and could have been verified.”

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the decision of the Patna High Court and BPSC. It ruled:

The five candidates from the general category shall be accommodated in the existing vacancies.
The three candidates from reserved categories shall be adjusted against future vacancies or current vacancies, at the discretion of the State.
The appointed candidates will be entitled to their seniority as per merit but will not receive arrears of salary for the intervening period.

Outcome: The appeals were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Bihar.

Petitioner Name: Aarav Jain & Others.
Respondent Name: Bihar Public Service Commission & State of Bihar.
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 23-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: aarav-jain-&-others-vs-bihar-public-service-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category