Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a detailed judgment dated 5 May 2021, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by several candidates whose candidature had been cancelled by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) during the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination. The cancellation occurred because they failed to produce original certificates and documents at the time of their interview.

The petitioners argued that they had performed well in all stages of the exam — preliminary, mains, and interview — but were unfairly disqualified for minor technical reasons. They contended that the BPSC acted arbitrarily and violated natural justice by not giving them time to submit their missing documents, despite verbally assuring that such an opportunity would be provided.

Background

The BPSC had issued Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 to recruit 349 Civil Judges (Junior Division). After qualifying in the preliminary and main examinations, the petitioners appeared for interviews in October 2019. However, when the final results were declared on 29 November 2019, their candidature was cancelled for non-production of certain original documents — such as character certificates, Bar Council letters, or No Objection Certificates (NOC).

The petitioners pleaded that:

• They had submitted all photocopies of documents during verification.
• They were verbally assured by officials that they could submit originals later.
• Some other candidates were allowed to produce originals after interviews.
• Clause 8(i) of the advertisement stated that documents could be demanded “at the time of interview or at any other time,” giving the Commission discretion to accept them later.

Hence, they requested that their candidature be restored and they be included in the final merit list.

BPSC’s Stand

The BPSC and the Patna High Court (as a party respondent in its administrative capacity) strongly defended the selection process. They argued that:

• The advertisement and interview instructions clearly required candidates to produce all original certificates at the time of the interview.
• Clause 10 of the advertisement made it mandatory to bring originals of all mark sheets and certificates, and warned that failure to do so could result in disqualification.
• Clause 3 of the interview programme explicitly stated that no extra time would be given for producing originals, and the Commission would be free to decide the candidate’s eligibility.
• The petitioners had admitted in their own affidavits that they did not have the required originals on the interview date.

Therefore, according to the BPSC, cancellation of candidature was entirely lawful and consistent with the recruitment rules framed under Article 234 of the Constitution and the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955.

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, examined both the advertisement clauses and the petitioners’ claims.

The Court noted that the requirement of original document verification was unambiguous. Candidates were clearly told that:

• They must possess the original certificates when filling the application.
• They must produce those originals during the interview.
• Failure to comply would empower the Commission to cancel candidature.

The Court also found that this issue was identical to an earlier case (Aarav Jain v. BPSC, CWJC No. 24282 of 2019), where the Court had already held that the BPSC had acted within its powers to reject candidates who failed to produce originals. The present petitioners’ situation was the same, and therefore, the earlier reasoning applied directly.

No Violation of Natural Justice

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument of “natural justice” and “discrimination.” It held that when the recruitment advertisement itself provides a clear condition, non-compliance automatically disqualifies the candidate. No additional notice or personal hearing was required.

The Court further observed that Article 14 (equality before law) cannot be used to demand “negative equality.” If by mistake some other candidates were given relaxation, that does not entitle others to claim the same illegality. Citing Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Court stated that equality cannot be claimed in illegality.

The petitioners’ reliance on the clause allowing production “at any other time” was also dismissed. The Court clarified that this clause did not dilute the obligation to produce originals at the interview, especially since the interview instructions had reiterated the requirement.

Decision

After reviewing all facts and precedents, the Patna High Court held that:

• The petitioners admittedly failed to produce mandatory documents.
• The BPSC followed the recruitment rules strictly.
• There was no arbitrariness or unfairness.

Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment carries important lessons for candidates appearing in public service and judicial examinations in Bihar and across India. It underscores that:

• Strict compliance with advertisement terms is necessary; even minor omissions can lead to cancellation.
• Verbal assurances or informal relaxations have no legal validity.
• Equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to repeat another’s procedural irregularity.
• Government recruitment bodies like the BPSC are justified in enforcing deadlines and document verification rules to maintain integrity in public selection.

For future aspirants, this ruling is a cautionary example that administrative fairness must coexist with procedural discipline.

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

• Issue 1: Whether BPSC acted illegally by cancelling candidature for non-production of original certificates.
  ➤ Decision: No. The Court held that the BPSC correctly enforced the advertisement terms; the petitioners themselves admitted non-compliance.
• Issue 2: Whether failure to give extra time violated natural justice.
  ➤ Decision: No. When the requirement is explicit, failure to comply disqualifies the candidate automatically.
• Issue 3: Whether Article 14 (equality) could justify relaxation because others allegedly got it.
  ➤ Decision: No. Article 14 does not permit negative equality; wrong benefit to others cannot justify repeating the error.
• Issue 4: Whether Clause 8(i) allowed flexibility in timing of document submission.
  ➤ Decision: No. It did not override the mandatory requirement under Clause 10 to bring originals to the interview.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Director of Settlements (A.P.) v. M.R. Appa Rao, (2002) 4 SCC 638
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85
• State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Sushil V. Patkar, (1991 Supp (2) SCC 432)
• State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330
• Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81
• P. Singaravelan v. District Collector, Tiruppur, (2020) 3 SCC 133

Judgments Relied Upon by the Court

• Aarav Jain v. BPSC & Ors., CWJC No. 24282 of 2019 (Patna High Court, 04.05.2021)

Case Title

Ratnakar Dubey & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2172 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 778

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla — for the petitioners
Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate (assisted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti) — for BPSC
Mr. Piyush Lal — for Patna High Court
Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate (assisted by Mr. Pranav Kumar) — for private respondents

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjE3MiMyMDIwIzEjTg==-tyQYgQnk–am1–sc=

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.