Bihar Judicial Services Exam: Supreme Court Strikes Down 10% Candidate Limit for Mains

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Rahul Dutta & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., striking down Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955. The case revolved around the Bihar Public Service Commission’s (BPSC) decision to limit the number of candidates qualifying for the final written examination to just 10% of those appearing for the preliminary exam. The Court ruled that this restriction was arbitrary and violated its earlier decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were candidates who had appeared for the Bihar Judicial Services preliminary examination. They challenged the BPSC’s decision to shortlist only 10% of the candidates for the mains examination, arguing that this policy unfairly restricted competition and violated Supreme Court guidelines.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3), the ratio for calling candidates to the final written examination should be 1:10—meaning that for each vacancy, ten candidates should qualify for the mains examination. However, the BPSC applied Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limited the number of candidates to only 10% of those appearing in the preliminary examination, significantly reducing the number of eligible candidates.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3).
• Whether restricting the number of candidates to 10% of those appearing for the preliminary exam was arbitrary and unreasonable.
• Whether the BPSC’s policy unfairly disadvantaged reserved category candidates.
• Whether the policy should be struck down, and the number of candidates allowed to appear for the final written examination should be increased.

Petitioners’ (Rahul Dutta & Ors.) Arguments

• The petitioners argued that the restriction of 10% was arbitrary and violated the Supreme Court’s directive in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3), which required a 1:10 ratio for candidates appearing in the final written examination.
• The policy unfairly reduced the number of candidates eligible for the mains examination, restricting competition and reducing opportunities for deserving candidates.
• For reserved category candidates, the restriction disproportionately reduced the number of shortlisted candidates, further limiting their representation.
• The BPSC’s policy had no logical basis, and the Court should intervene to ensure fair selection in judicial services.

Respondents’ (State of Bihar & BPSC) Arguments

• The respondents argued that Rule 5A(3) was introduced to manage an inordinately large number of candidates appearing in the preliminary exam.
• The restriction was necessary to streamline the examination process and ensure that only the most qualified candidates proceeded to the final written examination.
• The BPSC’s approach was in line with administrative efficiency and did not violate any fundamental rights.
• They contended that the restriction applied equally to all candidates and was not discriminatory.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 5A(3) was inconsistent with its earlier decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3). The Court made key observations:

“The fixation of 10% of the total number of appeared candidates in the preliminary examination to be called for the final written examination is otherwise also arbitrary and unreasonable as the same substantially restricts the number of candidates to stake their claim in the final examination.”

“As per the decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3), for Civil Judge (Junior Division) direct recruitment, the ratio of calling candidates for the final written examination should be 1:10, which has not been followed in the present case.”

“The restriction of 10% limits competition unfairly and is not in line with judicial service recruitment standards.”

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

• Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, was struck down as unconstitutional.
• The Court mandated that candidates should be called for the mains examination at the 1:10 ratio as per Malik Mazhar Sultan (3).
• The restriction had resulted in an unreasonably low number of candidates being shortlisted, which violated the principles of fair competition.
• The BPSC was directed to increase the number of candidates called for the final written examination accordingly.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for judicial service examinations:

• The 1:10 ratio must be followed in all future recruitment for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts.
• It prevents arbitrary restrictions on the number of candidates appearing for final written examinations.
• The judgment ensures fairer competition and increased opportunities for candidates.
• The BPSC and other state public service commissions must revise their recruitment policies in compliance with this ruling.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahul Dutta & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. is a significant victory for candidates appearing in judicial service examinations. By striking down Rule 5A(3), the Court reaffirmed its commitment to fair selection processes and ensured that a larger number of candidates would have the opportunity to compete for judicial positions. This ruling will serve as a precedent for similar recruitment processes across India, reinforcing the importance of transparent and merit-based selection in public service examinations.

Petitioner Name: Rahul Dutta & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Bihar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 14-02-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Rahul Dutta & Ors. vs The State of Bihar & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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