Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the rejection of his appointment as Gram Kachahari Secretary, upheld the decision of the authorities to appoint a more meritorious candidate who was ranked higher in the selection list.
The case arose from a selection process in Gram Panchayat Rangpura South, Dhamdaha, District Purnea. The petitioner had initially been appointed as Gram Kachahari Secretary in 2007 after the top two candidates on the merit list allegedly failed to attend the scheduled counselling. He received his appointment letter and joined the post. However, the candidate ranked first in the merit list (respondent no. 6) later filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), claiming that he had attended the counselling but was unfairly overlooked.
The SDO initially ruled in favor of respondent no. 6 and directed that appointments be made strictly in accordance with the merit list. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Magistrate, who upheld the SDO’s decision. The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court in an earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 16463 of 2009), which led to a remand of the matter. The Court directed the SDO to re-examine the case and deliver a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
In the fresh round of proceedings, the SDO again decided in favor of respondent no. 6, though it was acknowledged that neither party could provide conclusive evidence about the presence or absence of respondent no. 6 at the counselling session. The District Magistrate upheld this decision, reasoning that since respondent no. 6 held the top position in the merit list and the issue of his attendance at counselling remained unresolved, his claim should be sustained.
The High Court, in the present writ petition, reviewed these developments. The petitioner contended that the absence of any concrete proof of respondent no. 6’s participation in counselling should disqualify him. However, the Court noted that no finding had been recorded to indicate that respondent no. 6 did not participate. Given the disputed factual background and lack of clear evidence, the Court declined to interfere in the appointment made in favor of the higher-ranked candidate.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision reinforces the principle that appointments to public posts should be made strictly based on merit. The Court emphasized that when two versions of facts are presented without concrete evidence, priority must be given to the established merit list, especially when no explicit violation of procedure is proven. For local governance appointments like Gram Kachahari Secretary, the ruling underscores the importance of transparent and documented processes, including counselling and objections, to avoid prolonged litigation.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the absence of definite proof of counselling attendance disqualifies a top-ranked candidate from being appointed?
- Court’s Decision: No. Without any finding that the candidate did not attend counselling, and in the absence of conclusive proof from either party, appointment based on merit list is valid.
- Whether the authorities complied with the remand directions given by the High Court in earlier proceedings?
- Court’s Decision: Yes. Although no clear finding was recorded on the participation issue, both parties were heard and decisions were reasoned.
- Can delay in filing complaint against selection invalidate a higher-ranked candidate’s claim?
- Court’s Decision: No. This issue was already addressed in earlier litigation and cannot be raised.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- CWJC No. 16463 of 2009 (Patna High Court, order dated 11.01.2010)
Case Title
Madan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17814 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 206
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Binoy Kumar Singh, Ms. Sweta Raj, Mr. Kumar Bharat — for the Petitioner
- Mr. Kumar Alok (SC-7) — for the State
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc4MTQjMjAxOSMxI04=-6nNSSxg4caE=
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.