Supreme Court Quashes Relegation of Bihar Administrative Officer After 15 Years of Service

The Supreme Court of India, in a crucial ruling, quashed the order passed by the State of Bihar that relegated Subhash Kumar, a Bihar Administrative Service (BAS) officer, to Bihar Education Service after 15 years of service. The case highlighted procedural lapses and the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the officer was transferred without being given an opportunity to be heard.

Background of the Case

Subhash Kumar was selected in the 45th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) in 2001 and was appointed to the Bihar Administrative Service (BAS) in 2005. He completed his probation successfully and became a substantive member of the BAS.

The issue arose when another candidate, Baldeo Choudhary, who had also participated in the 45th Combined Competitive Examination but was not initially selected, challenged the BPSC’s evaluation of his answer script. The Patna High Court ruled in his favor in 2012 and directed that he be considered for appointment without retrospective benefits.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which in its order dated October 23, 2019, directed that Choudhary be considered for appointment from November 29, 2012, with notional benefits but without back wages. However, the authorities misinterpreted this order and revised the merit list, displacing Subhash Kumar from BAS to Bihar Education Service.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Subhash Kumar, represented by his counsel, argued the following:

• He had no objection to Baldeo Choudhary’s appointment as directed by the court, but his own relegation was unlawful.
• He was not made a party to the original writ petition, nor was he heard at any stage before his service was altered.
• The Supreme Court’s order of October 23, 2019, only directed the appointment of Choudhary and did not require any revision of the merit list.
• Revising the select list after 15 years and altering his service without notice was against the principles of natural justice.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State of Bihar and BPSC argued:

• The revision of the select list was necessary to accommodate Choudhary in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order.
• Since Kumar was the last candidate in the open category in BAS, he was moved to Bihar Education Service.
• The action taken was in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, and no procedural irregularity occurred.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case in detail and found several inconsistencies in the respondents’ approach:

• The court had never directed the revision of the merit list or displacement of any selected candidate.
• Choudhary’s case was sui generis (unique) and was to be considered without disturbing the existing appointments.
• Relegating Kumar to another service without hearing him was a violation of natural justice.
• The authorities had completely misread the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Subhash Kumar, holding that:

“Relegating the petitioner to Bihar Education Service after he had rendered 15 years of service as a member of the Bihar Administrative Service entails adverse civil consequences and indeed the order impugned could not have been passed by the respondents without affording him an opportunity of hearing and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

Accordingly, the court:

• Quashed the order dated July 23, 2020, that relegated Kumar to Bihar Education Service.
• Held that the authorities’ misinterpretation of the October 23, 2019, order was unjustified.
• Directed that Kumar’s position in BAS be restored.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court made it clear that once a candidate has served in a particular cadre for over a decade, they cannot be arbitrarily displaced without due process. The ruling also serves as a cautionary tale for authorities to strictly adhere to judicial orders and not make decisions that adversely affect individuals without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

Petitioner Name: Subhash Kumar.
Respondent Name: The State of Bihar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Bihar, India.
Judgment Date: 17-11-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Subhash Kumar vs The State of Bihar & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Transfers Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 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