In the instant three appeals, the judgments passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as “ High Court ”) in Sweety Kumari v. The appellants Sweety Kumari, a candidate of Scheduled Caste (SC) category and Vikramaditya Mishra, unreserved category 3 candidate, appeared in 30 Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “ 30 Examination ”) conducted for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to an Advertisement No 6 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018/23.08.2018. However, while declaring the result on 27.11.2019/29.11.2019, the candidature of the present two appellants as well as of one, Aarav Jain were rejected by a common communication. Undisputed facts of the case succinctly put are that the appellants Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra appeared in 30 Examination in furtherance to the advertisement No 6 of 2018 published on 21.08.2018/23.08.2018 by the BPSC to fill up the 349 5 vacancies. Aarav Jain and seven others similarly placed candidates filed their respective petitions before this Court in Civil Appeal No 4242 of 2022 titled Aarav Jain v. This Court granted relief to the eight candidates in the civil appeal of Aarav Jain (supra) by adjusting the available five vacancies in the unreserved category and for the other three candidates belonging to EBC, SC and BC category, it was directed to the State to either adjust them against future vacancies which were stated to be available at that time or the State was permitted to borrow three posts from future vacancies, one each in respective categories. In the said appeal, one Jyoti Joshi filed an application for intervention seeking directions for her appointment in implementation of judgment dated 09.02.2022 passed in CWJC No 7751 of 2020 by the High Court and also sought clarification to the effect that the interim order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Aarav Jain (supra) has not interfered with her appointment. It is apparent that the civil appeals filed in the case of Aarav Jain (supra) have been 8 decided in favour of the candidates and against the employer and the said order was already implemented. In view of this position in the rules it can safely be perceived that the candidate must be of good character so as to satisfy BPSC 9 in this regard by submitting true photocopies and upon requirement by BPSC, the original may be produced at the time of viva voce test.
Clause 7(ii) of the said advertisement is regarding online applications which prescribes that for any defects in entry made by candidate in the course of filling the online application, the commission shall not be responsible, and correction and change in this regard shall not be permissible. In clause 3 of the interview letter sent to the candidates, indeed it was mentioned that they shall be present with the certificates, mark-sheet and other documents including character certificate, in original form and its self-attested photocopies in two numbers. In the case of Aarav Jain (supra), this Court has not accepted the plea taken by BPSC that production of original certificate was mandatory because the candidates possessed such certificates on the date of submission of the application form. Now, coming to the case of appellant Aditi in SLP (Civil) No 16749/2023, she has passed the final examination but the certificate of law degree was not issued to her. As per the information furnished by the High Court, appellant Sweety Kumari in SC category secured 414 marks when the cut-off was 405 marks and the appellant Vikramaditya who applied under unreserved category secured 543 marks whereas the cut off under the unreserved category was 517. It is also fairly stated that in the 30 Examination, the total vacancies were 349 but after issuing of the directions by this Court, the State appointed 351 candidates deducting one post each of EWS and SC category from the future vacancies which were to be advertised under the 32 Examination.
The said special leave petitions were converted into civil appeals and this Court vide judgment dated 23.05.2022 set-aside the judgment dated 04.05.2021 of the High Court. However, upon issuance of directions by this Court, the State Government is ready to accommodate all the three candidates (namely Sweety Kumari, Vikramaditya Mishra and Aditi) who have also secured more marks than cut-off for their respective categories. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, because Sweety Kumari secured 414 marks though cut off in SC category was 405 and Vikramaditya Mishra secured 543 marks, though cut off was 517 in the unreserved category in the 30 examination and they were 16 candidates of merit, they be extended the benefit at par with the Aarav Jain (supra) and others. It is made clear here that similarly situated candidates would not be entitled to claim the same benefit further, because they have not come before this Court within a reasonable time.
