SC Dismisses Bihar Staff Selection Commission’s Appeal Against HC Direction To Appoint Candidate Who Secured Minimum Qualifying Marks
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) preferred against the judgment of the Patna High Court by which it directed the appointment of a candidate who secured minimum qualifying marks.
The said candidate had secured 22.575 marks out of 70 in the written examination and the minimum qualifying requirement was 32% as per the advertisement.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “… a candidate similar to respondent no.1 would be eligible to be considered for appointment having scored 32% marks (22.5 marks out of 70) in the written examination even though having no experience. Whereas another candidate who has scored 32% marks in the written with three years experience will have scored a total of 22.5 plus 30 a total of 52.5 marks out of 100. Such a candidate will stand much higher in the merit list. The candidate with just qualifying 32% marks in the written (22.5 out of 70) with no experience will stand almost at the bottom of the merit list, but still she will be eligible and qualified to be appointed provided the merit list goes as low as 22.5 marks out of 100.”
The Bench said that the conduct of BSSC was not in consonance with its advertisement.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria represented the appellants while Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash represented the respondents.
In this case, the issue was related to the selection and appointment to the post of City Manager under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar. The said post was governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, which were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. BSSC (appellant) issued an advertisement under the said Rules for appointment to 152 posts of City Managers in the Bihar State. The advertisement contained the required information regarding the vacancies, eligibility, criteria, etc. and the selection procedure to be followed for the appointment. Under the said advertisement, the respondent candidate who had no prior work experience, participated in the exam and achieved 22.575 marks out of 70.
However, BSSC declared the candidate as unsuccessful on the ground that she did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks of 32% as she secured 22.5 marks in the written test and had no prior work experience and achieved 0 marks out of 30 for the work experience. Therefore, it stated that in totality, she achieved 22.5 marks out of 100, below the minimum requirement of 32%. Whereas the candidate contended that the minimum requirement of 32% mentioned in the ad was just for the written test as per a simple textual interpretation and hence, she achieved 32.14% i.e., above the minimum qualifying marks of 32%. She approached the High Court seeking direction to call her for counselling and giving her appointment. The Single Judge allowed her writ petition and the Division Bench refused to interfere in the same. Being aggrieved, the appellants were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “Upon thoroughly examining all the records and arguments presented, we find that the impugned judgment is justified and correct. The judgment warrants no interference. The Division Bench has rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge.”
The Court said that the required minimum qualifying marks are concerned with marks obtained in the written test only, as is evident from the Rules 2014 as also the advertisement, and it has no relevance so far as for the final preparation of the merit list.
“The merit list was prepared in terms of Rule 5, read with Rule 11 of Rules 2014, which has been presented at the beginning of the judgment. Rules 5 and 11 deal with the process of Recruitment, appointment, recruitment procedure, and Residual matters. Nowhere in such rules there is mention of any minimum qualifying marks required out of a total of 100 marks”, it added.
The Court observed that the only criteria for minimum qualifying marks have been mentioned in the Rules 2014 and the advertisement, which states that 32 % for women is the minimum qualifying marks for the written test (70 marks) and not out of 100 marks as interpreted by the appellants.
“Respondent no. 1 received 22.5 marks out of 70, 32.14 per cent, above the minimum qualifying marks of 32 per cent as per the advertisement. Therefore, the appellants were not right by denying her a place on the merit list. Impugned judgement does not warrant any interference”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Himal Kumari & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 531)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, AOR Arun K. Sinha, Advocates Rakesh Singh, and Sumit Sinha.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, Advocate Anuj Prakash, AOR Namit Saxena, Advocates Niraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar, and AOR Rachitta Rai.
