The Patna High Court, in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) decided on 25 September 2020, held that a candidate who missed a Class-IV recruitment interview due to delayed postal delivery could not demand a special interview or reopening of the concluded selection. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, emphasizing delay/laches, the creation of third-party rights after publication of the merit list, and a subsequent change in the governing recruitment rules.

In this case, an applicant for a Class-IV post in the Civil Court at Begusarai received his interview call letter only on the afternoon of the scheduled interview date (16.11.2016). The letter had been dispatched by post on 11.11.2016. Unable to attend, the applicant submitted a representation five days later (21.11.2016). Meanwhile, the selection process continued and the merit list was published on 17.12.2016. A writ petition filed in March 2017 was dismissed by a Single Judge, relying on binding precedent that postal delay does not confer a right to fresh consideration after the cut-off. The Division Bench affirmed this view and dismissed the LPA.

The Bench underscored that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and does not ordinarily assist indolent or tardy litigants, especially where third-party rights have intervened. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s statement of principle in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, which cautions against entertaining delayed claims that could cause confusion, inconvenience, and injustice to successful candidates. The Court also relied on its earlier Division Bench ruling in Shubham Kumar v. BPSC, which held that delay by the postal department in delivery of communications does not entitle a candidate to insist on relaxation of the selection schedule.

Another important facet was the change in the recruitment framework between 2016 and 2017. At the time of the selection, the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & IV) Rules, 2009 applied, wherein the District & Sessions Judge was the appointing authority. With effect from 18.05.2017, the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2017 came into force, making the Registrar General of the High Court the appointing authority for Class-IV posts. Given that the original recruitment had concluded and a new legal regime had taken effect, the Court refused to unsettle the completed process.

The appellant’s plea for parity—invoking instances from other judgeships where candidates allegedly got a subsequent interview due to delayed letters—did not persuade the Court. The Division Bench found that the appellant had first delayed his own representation, then waited months to approach the Court, by which time the merit list had been published and appointments were complete. On these facts, the Court held there was “no merit” in the LPA.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is significant for government job aspirants and recruiting authorities across Bihar:

• For candidates: The judgment reiterates that courts are reluctant to reopen completed selection processes due to postal delays, especially when the candidate himself waited before complaining and when third-party rights of selected candidates have accrued. Aspirants should proactively track recruitment timelines, maintain updated contact details, monitor official portals, and act immediately upon learning of any difficulty. A delayed representation or writ is likely to be fatal.
• For recruiting bodies: The ruling supports adherence to published schedules and signals that exceptions will be narrowly construed. While not mandating any particular communication mode, the case highlights the practical value of multi-channel notices (email/SMS/website updates) to reduce disputes about postal delivery. Once a merit list is published and appointments are made, courts will rarely interfere unless a compelling legal violation is shown.
• For the public administration: The transition from the 2009 Rules to the 2017 Rules shifted appointing authority from District Judges to the High Court’s Registrar General for Class-IV posts. This structural change further weighed against reopening an already concluded 2016 process under the earlier regime.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether a candidate who misses an interview due to postal delay can demand a special interview or reopening of the concluded selection process.
  Decision: No. Postal delay does not vest a legal right to special consideration contrary to the notified schedule, particularly after the process has concluded and third-party rights have accrued. The Court followed its own Division Bench precedent in Shubham Kumar v. BPSC.
• Whether the writ court should interfere despite the candidate’s delay in seeking relief.
  Decision: No. Writ relief is discretionary. The appellant waited five days to make a representation and then four months to file the writ, by which time the merit list had been published. Relying on Nandlal Jaiswal, the Court held that unexplained and inordinate delay, coupled with intervening third-party rights, is a strong reason to decline interference.
• Effect of change in recruitment rules between 2016 and 2017.
  Decision: The process in question had already attained finality under the 2009 Rules. The 2017 Rules, which designate the Registrar General as appointing authority, supported the Court’s decision not to unsettle a concluded selection under a different regime.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations) — Skip if none.

• The appellant pointed to alleged parity instances in other judgeships (Buxar, Bhojpur, Sheikhpura, Hajipur) where candidates purportedly got another chance after delayed letters. No authoritative judgments establishing a right to a special interview were produced; the Single Judge had instead relied on Shubham Kumar v. BPSC, 2014 (3) PLJR 661.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 — writ relief is discretionary; delay and third-party rights weigh against interference.
• Shubham Kumar v. BPSC, 2014 (3) PLJR 661 (Patna DB) — postal delay does not confer right to acceptance beyond schedule; no special interview.
• T. Jayakumar (Supreme Court) — upholding rejection where application was defective/late; strict adherence to cut-offs.
• S. Krishna Chaitanya (Supreme Court) — consistent view on late submissions in recruitment.
• Manas Kumar Sinha (Patna DB), Sri Krishna Nandan Sah v. Union of India, 2012 (3) PLJR 173; Mohan Jee Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2012 (4) PLJR 995 — Patna High Court decisions aligned with strict compliance to deadlines and rejection of belated claims.

Case Title
Petitioner (Class-IV aspirant) vs. Registrar General, Patna High Court & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal)

Case Number
LPA No. 1377 of 2018 in CWJC No. 4290 of 2017, decided on 25.09.2020.

Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 33

Coram and Names of Judges — Always prefix with Hon’ble
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the appellant: Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate.
• For the respondents: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate.

Link to Judgment
MyMxMzc3IzIwMTgjMSNO-M–ak1–MgfgzDVyg=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.