Introduction

In a significant judgment delivered on August 5, 2024,
the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Chief Justice
K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia, dismissed Letters
Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 470 of 2023. This appeal arose from a writ petition
filed by unsuccessful candidates who sought the cancellation of Non-Creamy
Layer (NCL) Certificates issued to about 3500 candidates who had availed of
age relaxation benefits in a prolonged recruitment process originally
initiated in 2014 by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC).

The Court’s decision reaffirmed the validity of
retrospective NCL certificate issuance and emphasized principles of procedural
fairness, non-arbitrariness, and due process, especially in administrative
actions undertaken following judicial directives. The ruling effectively
highlights how justice and administrative flexibility must balance to uphold constitutional
values of equality and opportunity.

Background: The Long Road of Recruitment

The dispute finds its roots in the BSSC’s 2014
advertisement for 13120 vacancies in Group-A and Group-B posts
under the Intermediate Level Combined Competitive Examination. While Group-A
posts required physical tests, Group-B did not. A challenge to the age
eligibility criteria resulted in the filing of CWJC No. 17465 of 2014,
through which age relaxation was sought and granted by the Court in 2015.

Following this, a supplementary application window
was opened via a notification dated 05.02.2016, allowing candidates who
became eligible due to age relaxation to apply until 13.03.2016. This
was long after the original deadline of 31.10.2014, creating two
applicant pools—one under the original deadline, and the other under
judicially-mandated relaxation.

Meanwhile, the recruitment process itself suffered multiple
disruptions:

• Preliminary
  exams were cancelled and rescheduled.
• The
  final mains examination was conducted only in 2020.
• Typing
  and physical tests followed in 2021.
• Additional
  eligible candidates were discovered in 2021, following scrutiny and
  corrections.

Eventually, 14410 candidates were called for counselling,
and the issue of NCL Certificates surfaced as a decisive factor for
appointments under reserved categories.

Core Issue: The NCL Certificate Controversy

The heart of the appellants’ grievance was that:

• Approximately
  3500 candidates who had availed age relaxation (based on the
  2016 notification) were allowed to submit NCL Certificates
  retrospectively for the year 2013–14, i.e., the recruitment
  year.
• Government
  communications—Letter No. 7591 dated 20.05.2022 and Letter No.
  1928 dated 23.05.2022—directed District Magistrates to issue
  such retrospective certificates based on eligibility at that time.
• The
  appellants contended that, had these certificates not been granted,
  they might have stood a chance in the final selection.

Thus, they demanded cancellation of all such NCL
Certificates.

High Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

1. Non-impleadment of Affected Parties

At the very outset, the Court highlighted a fatal
procedural flaw—the 3500 candidates who benefited from the Government’s
circulars were not made parties in the writ petition. This omission
violated the principles of natural justice, as any adverse decision
would affect their rights without hearing them.

Even if their individual names weren’t known, the
petitioners neither sought disclosure nor requested the Court to publish
public notice to represent these affected parties.

2. Contextual Justification for Government Action

The learned Single Judge’s reasoning—upheld by the
Division Bench—was based on the extraordinary delay in recruitment
caused by litigation and procedural lapses. The Court observed that:

• Candidates
  allowed to apply in 2016 due to age relaxation could not have
  submitted 2013–14 NCL certificates, simply because the opportunity
  arose later.
• The Government’s
  direction was a facilitative measure to ensure that judicial
  orders granting age relaxation did not become illusory or ineffective.
• The
  circular did not mandate indiscriminate issuance of certificates,
  but allowed District Magistrates to verify eligibility based on the
  candidate’s parental income and social status in 2013–14.

Therefore, the Court found no arbitrariness or malice
in the State’s conduct.

3. No Challenge to Eligibility or Bona Fides

The appellants did not present any evidence to show
that the candidates who received retrospective NCL Certificates were not
actually eligible in 2013–14. The Court underlined that unless such a
claim is made and substantiated, a blanket cancellation demand is
untenable.

Additionally, the prior writ petition (CWJC No. 20854 of
2021) filed by some of these candidates—challenging the delay in
certificate acceptance—had been withdrawn voluntarily. Hence, the
Government’s subsequent action was neither in violation of any order nor
contrary to public policy.

4. Administrative Discretion and Equitable Treatment

The judgment reaffirmed the State’s power to take
remedial steps in light of evolving circumstances, especially when guided
by judicial orders. The Court stated:

“We find absolutely no anomaly in the Government having
granted a window of benefit to those persons who were directed to be granted
age relaxation by this Court…”

Thus, ensuring that equity did not become a casualty
due to administrative rigidity or procedural delays.

Final Observations of the Court

The Court was categorical that:

• There
  was no legal infirmity in the issuance of retrospective NCL
  Certificates.
• The writ
  petition was flawed in law due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
• The government’s
  intent was bona fide and aimed at preserving the constitutional
  right to equal opportunity.
• There
  was no miscarriage of justice, nor any prejudice caused to
  the appellants.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge was upheld.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Procedural Rigor in Writ Litigation

This case is a strong reminder that all affected parties
must be impleaded or adequately represented in public interest or
competitive recruitment-related litigation. Natural justice cannot be
bypassed even in seemingly collective grievances.

2. Flexibility in Public Administration

The judgment underscores that bureaucratic processes must
adapt to judicially created rights, particularly when long
timelines and systemic delays are involved. The State’s flexibility
in reopening or adjusting procedural requirements is not only permissible
but sometimes necessary for justice.

3. Reaffirmation of Equality Principles

The Court harmonized equality before law with equity
in execution—ensuring those initially excluded through no fault of their
own could compete fairly, without disadvantaging others.

4. Clarity on Retrospective Certifications

The case also provides clarity on the legality of
retrospective NCL certification. As long as the economic and social
criteria were satisfied in the reference year, and due process was
followed, such certification does not violate any statute or policy.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s judgment in Kaushik Kumar &
Ors. v. State of Bihar is a textbook example of judicial balance,
administrative discretion, and principled adjudication. It upholds
the spirit of inclusive governance and procedural fairness,
reminding all stakeholders—government, judiciary, and citizens—that justice
delayed must not become justice denied, especially in the complex realm of
public employment.

This decision will likely serve as a precedent for future
litigation involving delayed recruitment processes, retrospective
eligibility criteria, and the fine balance between legal technicalities and
equitable outcomes.

Read the full judgement Below;

MyM0NzAjMjAyMyMxI04=-pBdEUOOus0E=