Bihar Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Dispute: Supreme Court’s Final Verdict

The case of Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. involves a long legal battle over the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the Bihar Police. The petitioners sought appointment based on parity with 133 candidates who were appointed under Supreme Court orders without undergoing the physical test. The case presents significant questions regarding fair recruitment practices, judicial intervention in selection processes, and the scope of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

Background of the Case

The recruitment process began with an advertisement (No. 704 of 2004) issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for 1510 posts of Sub-Inspector in Bihar. The selection process involved a physical test followed by a written examination. However, due to multiple legal challenges and discrepancies in the selection process, the number of posts was increased over the years.

Following allegations of irregularities, several candidates approached the courts, leading to a protracted legal battle. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which passed a series of rulings to address the grievances of affected candidates.

Petitioners’ Claims

The petitioners contended that they were similarly situated to the 133 candidates who were appointed without undergoing a physical test. They argued:

• They had applied under Advertisement No. 511/2011, like the 133 candidates.
• The Supreme Court had allowed the 133 candidates to be appointed based on a prior selection without requiring them to take the physical test.
• They should be granted the same exemption and be directly appointed as Sub-Inspectors.
• At least 67 vacancies were still available, which could accommodate them.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Bihar and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission opposed the petitions, arguing:

• The Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the 133 candidates was an exceptional ruling under Article 142 of the Constitution and was not meant to set a precedent.
• The petitioners either failed the physical test or did not participate in it at all.
• The recruitment process had already been completed, and reopening it for additional candidates would disrupt the established selection framework.
• The Supreme Court had already clarified that similar claims would not be entertained.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the legal aspects of the case and noted:

“The relief granted to the 133 candidates was in the exercise of powers under Article 142 and was specifically stated not to be treated as a precedent.”

The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ claims lacked merit, as they either failed to clear the physical test or did not appear for it. It ruled:

“Directing the appointment of all those who did not take the physical test or failed would lead to an unending process.”

The Court further observed that the exceptional treatment granted to the 133 candidates was based on unique circumstances and could not be extended to others.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The Court reaffirmed the principle that all candidates must adhere to the prescribed selection criteria unless explicitly exempted under extraordinary circumstances.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Judicial intervention in recruitment: The Court clarified that its exceptional ruling in favor of the 133 candidates was not meant to be a general precedent.
• Fair selection process: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the recruitment process and not granting exemptions arbitrarily.
• Scope of Article 142: The Court reiterated that its discretionary powers under Article 142 are meant for exceptional cases and cannot be used as a basis for further claims.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as an important precedent in public recruitment cases, ensuring that judicial rulings do not disrupt the integrity of the selection process. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that all candidates must meet the prescribed eligibility criteria unless explicitly exempted under extraordinary circumstances.

Petitioner Name: Nirbhay Kumar & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Bihar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 11-06-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-06-2020.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 Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2020
See all petitions in 2020 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