Simplified Explanation of the Judgment (English)

The Patna High Court, in a significant decision delivered by Hon’ble Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ruled in favor of a candidate who was denied marks for his higher educational qualification during recruitment for the post of Lab Technician under the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC). The Court held that the Commission could not deny marks for a candidate’s higher qualification merely because the subject of his degree (Chemistry) was not identical to the subject of the diploma required for the post.

Background of the Case

The BSSC had issued Advertisement No. 05010115 dated 21 June 2015 inviting applications for the post of Lab Technicians. The advertisement clearly stated that selection would be based on a total of 100 marks — 85 marks for academic and professional qualifications and experience, and 15 marks for the interview.

Under this scheme, 10 marks were allotted for higher qualifications (B.Sc./M.Sc.) in addition to marks for 10+2, Diploma in Lab Technician, and work experience.

The petitioner, who held a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in Chemistry with first class, applied under the Backward Class Category. However, he was not called for the interview because the BSSC awarded him only 28.44 marks, whereas the cutoff for his category was 31.025 marks. Upon inquiry, the petitioner discovered that he was not given the 10 marks reserved for candidates with a higher qualification.

Commission’s Argument

The BSSC argued that only those candidates who held a higher degree (B.Sc./M.Sc.) in the same or related subject to the diploma course would be eligible for the 10 additional marks. The Commission relied on a communication from the Health Department (Letter No. 1454(4) dated 07.12.2017), which clarified that higher qualifications in unrelated subjects could not be considered relevant for awarding marks.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner, through senior counsel, argued that the advertisement itself did not contain any such restriction. Therefore, the Commission could not alter the terms of the advertisement midway by imposing additional conditions that were not originally stated. He cited the judgment in Priya Ranjan Kumar & Another v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 4504 of 2018), a similar case arising from the same advertisement, in which the Patna High Court had already clarified this very issue.

Court’s Observations and Reasoning

The Court examined the Bihar Lab Technician Cadre Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 7 of the Rules lays down a specific recruitment procedure and distribution of marks — including 10 marks for higher qualifications (B.Sc./M.Sc.) — without any limitation on the subject stream.

The Court noted that:

• The statutory rules, having the force of law, did not restrict higher qualifications to related subjects.
• Any administrative letter or departmental instruction could not override statutory rules.
• The recruitment process must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the Rules.
• The Commission’s reliance on the Health Department’s letter was, therefore, unjustified and beyond its authority.

Citing the earlier Priya Ranjan Kumar judgment, the Court reiterated that the benefit of higher qualifications must be given irrespective of the subject of study, so long as the degree is recognized and falls under the “higher education” category.

Court’s Directions

The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:

• The BSSC must consider the petitioner’s B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry for awarding 10 marks under the category of “higher qualification.”
• The Commission must rectify the petitioner’s score within three weeks from the receipt of the judgment.
• The Commission must re-evaluate the petitioner’s merit for the purpose of calling him for the interview.

This decision ensured that the petitioner’s merit would be reconsidered fairly in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment is crucial for thousands of aspirants in Bihar applying through competitive examinations conducted by the BSSC or similar bodies. It upholds the principle that recruitment authorities cannot change the rules of the game after the process has begun.

The Court’s interpretation strengthens the faith of candidates in transparent recruitment procedures. It confirms that statutory rules, once published, cannot be diluted by internal circulars or departmental letters.

For the government, it serves as a reminder to maintain consistency between recruitment advertisements and statutory service rules. For candidates, it provides reassurance that legitimate qualifications — even in slightly different streams — cannot be ignored when the rules do not explicitly restrict them.

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

• Issue 1: Whether the BSSC could deny marks for higher qualification (B.Sc. in Chemistry) on the ground that it was not in a related subject.
  Decision: No. The Court held that the statutory recruitment rules did not restrict higher qualifications to specific subjects.
• Issue 2: Whether administrative instructions or departmental letters can override statutory rules framed under Article 309.
  Decision: No. The Court reiterated that statutory rules prevail over departmental communications.
• Issue 3: What relief should be granted to the petitioner?
  Decision: The BSSC was directed to award 10 marks for higher qualification, correct the merit list, and consider the petitioner for interview within three weeks.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Priya Ranjan Kumar & Another v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 4504 of 2018 (Patna High Court) — relied upon by the petitioner to establish that higher qualification marks cannot be restricted to related subjects.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Priya Ranjan Kumar & Another v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 4504 of 2018 — followed as precedent.

Case Title

Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Others (Patna High Court, Single Bench)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7785 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 567

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the petitioner: Mr. Narayan Singh (Senior Advocate) with Mr. Surya Narayan Poddar
• For the State: Mr. S.D. Yadav (AAG 9) with Ms. Shama Sinha
• For the BSSC: Dr. Ratan Kumar

Link to Judgment

MTUjNzc4NSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-IrQOwdltt9g=

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.