Bihar Selection Process: Supreme Court Rules on Non-Submission of Diploma Certificate

On 24th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial ruling in Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun v. State of Bihar & Ors., addressing the issue of whether a candidate can be denied additional marks for failing to submit a **diploma certificate** at the time of the interview, despite producing **sufficient evidence** of qualification.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, **Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun**, stating that he should have been awarded the **additional 10 marks** since he had already submitted his mark sheet proving his qualification. This judgment clarifies the importance of procedural fairness in government selection processes and ensures that technicalities do not unfairly disadvantage candidates.

Background of the Case

The appellant, **Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun**, was a candidate in a **Bihar government selection process** for a medical position. He had applied for the post and was eligible for an additional **10 marks** based on his **Diploma in Orthopaedics** qualification. However, his claim for these marks was rejected on the grounds that he had not submitted his **diploma certificate** at the time of the interview.

The appellant argued that he had submitted his **mark sheet**, which clearly indicated that he had passed the diploma. Despite this, the selection board refused to award him the additional marks, significantly affecting his ranking in the selection process.

Legal Issues and Key Questions

The Supreme Court was required to determine:

• Was the **non-submission of the diploma certificate** at the time of the interview a valid reason to deny additional marks?
• Did the **mark sheet** serve as **sufficient proof** that the appellant had completed the diploma?
• Should the selection board have granted the **10 additional marks** based on available evidence?
• What corrective action should be taken to rectify the appellant’s ranking in the selection process?

Arguments by the Appellant (Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun)

The appellant, represented by legal counsel, made the following arguments:

• He had successfully passed the Diploma in Orthopaedics, as evidenced by his **mark sheet**.
• At the time of the interview, he **submitted the mark sheet**, which contained an **official endorsement** confirming that he had passed.
• Refusing to grant the **10 marks** due to the **non-submission of the diploma certificate** was an **unjustified technicality**.
• The selection board failed to consider **substantial evidence** and acted in an **arbitrary manner**.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Bihar & Selection Board)

The respondents, representing the **State of Bihar**, countered:

• The selection criteria **required submission of the diploma certificate** at the time of the interview.
• Since the appellant did not submit the **actual diploma certificate**, he **did not fulfill the conditions** for the **additional 10 marks**.
• There was no **discretionary power** to accept alternative documents like the **mark sheet**.
• The selection process followed **standardized rules**, and exceptions could not be made for individual candidates.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising **Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul**, examined the **evidence and procedural requirements** of the case.

The Court ruled:

“The appellant was denied the benefit of 10 marks on the ground that he did not produce the certificate of having passed the Diploma in Orthopaedics at the time of the interview. But according to the appellant, he had produced the mark sheet, which contains the endorsement that he had passed the Diploma.”

The Court further stated:

“In our view, before the Interview Board, sufficient evidence having been produced of having passed the diploma, the appellant should have been granted the allotted 10 marks in that regard.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of **Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun**, stating:

“The appellant shall produce the original Diploma before the respondent – Commission within two weeks from today, based on which, the Commission shall reassess the appellant and forward its recommendation to the Government within another two weeks.”

Additionally, the Court directed the **State Government** to act on the recommendation and ensure that the appellant’s **revised ranking** is reflected in the final selection list.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling ensures that **procedural technicalities do not unfairly disadvantage candidates** in government selection processes. The key takeaways from this judgment include:

• **Documentary proof must be considered fairly:** The **mark sheet** was a valid proof of passing the diploma and should not have been ignored.
• **Technical errors should not override merit:** Candidates should not be penalized for minor documentary lapses if substantial evidence is available.
• **Judicial intervention can correct procedural injustices:** The Court’s ruling ensures that **merit-based selections are not obstructed** by rigid administrative processes.
• **Government agencies must act on Supreme Court directions:** The ruling sets a **binding precedent** for similar selection disputes.

The ruling protects candidates from **arbitrary rejection** and reinforces the importance of **fair assessment in public service selections**.

Petitioner Name: Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun.
Respondent Name: State of Bihar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 24-09-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tar vs State of Bihar & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-09-2018.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 Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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