Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has quashed a clause in a government recruitment advertisement that unlawfully provided horizontal reservation for civil engineering graduates from Government Engineering Colleges in Bihar. The recruitment concerned was for the post of Special Survey Assistant Settlement Officer, advertised under Advertisement No. 3 of 2019 by the Directorate of Land Records and Survey.
The petitioner, a civil engineering graduate from a private engineering college and a candidate belonging to the Backward Class (BC) category, challenged Clause 3(ii) of the advertisement. This clause reserved 50% of the posts for graduates of Bihar’s Government Engineering Colleges. The petitioner argued that such a reservation was not backed by any statutory provision or administrative direction and thus, was unconstitutional.
The recruitment process was governed by the Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contractual Appointment Rules, 2019. These rules do allow for reservation, but only as per guidelines issued by the General Administration Department. The petitioner highlighted that there were no instructions from the General Administration Department that permitted such specific horizontal reservation for government engineering graduates.
When the matter was heard, the State government defended the clause by claiming it was included “in the interest of the State.” However, when pressed by the Court, the State could not produce any legal basis or official instruction authorizing such a reservation. A notification dated 04.09.2017 from the General Administration Department was submitted but it did not mention any such reservation. It only confirmed the standard reservations like those for women, persons with disabilities, and descendants of freedom fighters.
Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, delivering the judgment, made it clear that recruitment to government posts must strictly follow statutory rules. Any term in the recruitment advertisement that goes beyond or against these rules is not legally valid. The Court held that Clause 3(ii) of the advertisement was illegal, as it had no foundation in the 2019 Appointment Rules or any official policy.
Consequently, the Court struck down Clause 3(ii) and ordered the State to revise the merit list without applying the invalid reservation. The Court also noted that provisionally selected candidates had no indefeasible right and therefore did not need to be made parties to the case.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reaffirms the principle that recruitment for public posts must adhere strictly to the law. It prevents administrative authorities from inserting unauthorized preferences or reservations that can adversely impact eligible candidates. For candidates from private engineering colleges, it restores fairness and equality in government job opportunities.
For the government, this ruling serves as a reminder to ensure that any changes or additions to reservation policies must be formally backed by law or administrative orders. Arbitrary clauses in recruitment advertisements can lead to litigation, delays, and loss of public trust in the process.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether Clause 3(ii) providing 50% horizontal reservation for government engineering graduates was legally valid?
- Decision: No. The clause had no basis in statutory rules and was struck down.
- Was there any administrative instruction justifying such a reservation?
- Decision: No. The State could not produce any such directive.
- Could provisionally selected candidates claim a right to selection?
- Decision: No. The Court clarified that provisional selection does not create an enforceable right.
- What remedy was granted?
- Decision: The merit list was to be revised without applying the invalid reservation clause, and appointments were to proceed.
Judgments Referred by Parties
None
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
None
Case Title
Amit Kumar Azad vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14533 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 68
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate — for the petitioner
- Mr. Rohan Verma, Advocate — for the petitioner
- Mr. Md. Asif Kalim, AC to AAG-12 — for the State
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ1MzMjMjAxOSMxI04=-wobrVHwU4es=
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.
