Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court recently dealt with a dispute concerning recruitment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM) under the National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) in Bihar. Three petitioners had challenged the shortlist prepared by the State Health Society pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2019, which advertised 500 ANM posts and 100 Lab Technician posts.

The core grievance of the petitioners was that the selection process was not conducted in accordance with the advertisement. They argued that the computer-based test (CBT) results should have been published separately before preparing the final merit list. They alleged that the entire process was manipulated and that shortlisted candidates were called for document verification without transparency.

Recruitment Rules in the Advertisement

Clause 12 of the advertisement laid down that:

• 50 marks were allocated for the computer-based test.
• 50 marks were allocated for academic qualifications (calculated as 0.5 marks per percentage).
• Final merit was to be drawn from the total of 100 marks.

Thus, selection was based on both exam performance and academic record. Clause 13 further prescribed tie-breaking rules (older candidate or higher qualification gets preference).

Petitioners’ Argument

The petitioners insisted that the CBT results should have been published first, followed by a combined merit list. They also referred to internal guidelines of the Health Society to support their plea. They requested the Court to quash the shortlist and direct authorities to follow proper procedure.

State Health Society’s Defense

The Health Society countered by stating:

• The process strictly followed the advertisement.
• There was no requirement to publish CBT results separately. Instead, candidates’ CBT marks and academic marks were combined to prepare a final merit list out of 100.
• Candidates were called for document verification in the ratio of 1:1.5 initially, later increased to 1:2.5, due to COVID-related delays.
• A final select list was published on 05.01.2021, and successful candidates had already joined their postings.

Court’s Findings

The Court carefully examined Clauses 12 and 13 of the advertisement and found:

1. No rule required separate publication of CBT results. The advertisement clearly mandated preparation of the final merit list based on combined marks.
2. The selection procedure adopted by the Health Society matched the advertisement and guidelines.
3. Importantly, the petitioners failed to challenge the final select list published in January 2021, nor did they make the successful candidates party to the case.
   • Referring to Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht (2010) 12 SCC 204 and Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 16 SCC 187, the Court emphasized that successful candidates are necessary parties in such challenges. Without giving them a hearing, the Court cannot pass adverse orders.

Decision

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, holding that:

• The recruitment process was lawful and transparent.
• Petitioners’ non-joinder of successful candidates was a fatal defect.
• The petition was dismissed without costs.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

For candidates:

• Aspirants cannot expect CBT scores to be published separately if the advertisement does not provide for it.
• When challenging a recruitment process, it is essential to implead the successful candidates; otherwise, the case is liable to fail.

For government and Health Society:

• Reinforces that recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement.
• Protects finalized recruitment lists from belated challenges unless there is clear illegality.

For legal clarity:

• The decision upholds the principle of necessary party doctrine in service jurisprudence: successful candidates must be heard before their appointments are disturbed.
• Establishes judicial backing for combined merit lists (exam + academics) where expressly provided in recruitment advertisements.

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

• Was the Health Society required to publish CBT results separately before final merit list?
  • No. The advertisement required a combined merit list, not separate publication.
• Was the selection process conducted fairly as per Advertisement No. 12 of 2019?
  • Yes. The procedure was in line with the clauses of the advertisement and guidelines.
• Could the petitioners succeed without impleading successful candidates?
  • No. Non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal, as per Supreme Court precedents.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204
• Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187

Case Title

Sudha Devi & Ors. v. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept. & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7401 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 97

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah (Oral Judgment dated 26-02-2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate
• For the State: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10 with Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, AC to GA-10
• For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr. K.K. Sinha and Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocates

Link to Judgment

MTUjNzQwMSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-iYNeaoDrxag=

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.