Explore the intricacies of the Court’s legal analysis in a complex case revolving around the exemption from physical tests for candidates in a selection process. Delve into the nuances of the court’s decisions and the considerations made in resolving the dispute. #LegalAnalysis #CourtDecisions
Facts
- A large number of candidates who applied did not appear for the Physical test, and most of those who did failed.
- History of litigation regarding selection for the Sub-Inspector post in Bihar.
- Petitioners are candidates who did not participate or failed in the Physical test for Advertisement No.511 of 2011.
- 133 candidates appointed as Sub-Inspectors without undergoing the Physical test due to a court order, which the petitioners also claim.
- The State argues that the petitioners are not entitled to appointment or parity with the 133 candidates due to a specific court order.
- Process of selection included Physical standards, examination, and a written exam.
- An expert Committee appointed by the Commission re-scrutinized answer sheets but did not accept the petitioners’ representations.
- 160 originally selected candidates had to be removed due to errors in the selection process.
- The Court directed the Commission to hold a fresh examination for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector, allowing only the appellants who were writ petitioners before the High Court or pending before the High Court to participate.
- A total of 3227 candidates were found eligible to appear in the physical test, out of which only 232 cleared it and 97 candidates finally cleared the written examination.
- Challenges were made regarding the appointment of 186 candidates, leading to directions from the Court to maintain status quo.
- Subsequently, a separate selection process for 299 posts saw 2479 candidates undertake the process.
- 133 candidates were not permitted to retake the written and physical tests, while the State Government decided to retain the originally selected 160 candidates.
- 639 more vacancies were created to accommodate the 160 retained candidates and to maintain the roster.
- Various writ petitions were filed regarding correctness of answers and the increase in vacancies, leading to the matter being brought before the Court.
- After considering applications and hearing parties, the Court permitted a broader group of candidates to appear for the examination for the 299 posts of Sub-Inspector.
- Only 232 out of 2192 candidates who turned up for selection qualified in the physical test, with ultimately only 97 candidates being selected for the 299 posts.
- The Court permitted the appointment of the 97 selected candidates and the 186 candidates the State decided to appoint to accommodate OBC candidates.
- In another case, the High Court directed the appointment of 67 candidates from the most backward category who were initially left out, leading to the State deciding to appoint 186 more candidates.
- Further orders were passed to proceed with the physical test for the candidates to undergo similar physical and written examinations.
Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration
Arguments
- Petitioners claim parity with the 133 candidates exempted from physical test in 2011 selection.
- Commission found 3227 eligible, 2192 appeared for selection against 299 posts.
- Petitioners argue they should receive the same benefit as the 133 exempted candidates.
- Petitioners did not appear for physical test but argue posts are still available for appointment.
- Some petitioners have higher marks than the 133 exempted candidates.
- 67 posts are still vacant for the petitioners to be accommodated.
- Petitioners seek exemption from physical test similar to the 133 candidates.
- All petitioners were subjected to physical test in 2004 selection and now seek the same benefit.
- Mr. Shivam Singh and other counsel argue that the petitioners are 16 candidates who either did not appear in the physical test or participated and failed.
- Names of petitioners were not included in the select list of 97 candidates after conducting physical and written tests.
- The Commission states that all petitioners did not participate in the physical test or failed when they did.
- The order of the Court dated 24.10.2018 was limited to 133 candidates and should not be considered a precedent for others.
- The Court observed that there was no contumacious conduct by the respondents but clarity was needed for the long-running dispute.
Also Read: Enhancing Compensation and Modifying Sentences: A Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The Court directed the State and Selection Commission to complete the appointment process by 01.11.2018.
- 133 candidates who cleared the physical efficiency test in 2006 are to undergo the same test as 186 candidates in the 2017/2018 appointment process.
- The Court emphasized that the 133 candidates should only be subjected to a medical examination, as previously ordered.
- Despite certain candidates failing or not taking the physical test, the 133 candidates are exempt from retaking it.
- Orders regarding the 133 candidates should not be considered as a precedent according to the Court.
- Petitioners seeking exemption from the physical test cannot claim benefits based on the 133 candidates exemption, as it is not considered a precedent.
- Only 232 candidates out of 2192 cleared the physical test for 299 posts, including the 133 candidates mentioned in previous orders.
- Several candidates, including some petitioners, filed an impleadment application in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2018 in C.A.No.2805 of 2017.
- The application was rejected on 01.11.2018, with an observation that the applicants can make representations to the State of Bihar, but if rejected, it would not lead to further legal proceedings.
- The applicants sought the same relief as 133 candidates who were granted the relief.
- Directing the appointment of all candidates, including petitioners, who did not take or failed the physical test would be an endless process and may involve over a thousand candidates claiming similar treatment.
Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines
Decision
- Court passed an order on 01.11.2018 allowing State of Bihar to consider and pass appropriate orders.
- State of Bihar must pass orders on representations within three months.
- Rejections of representations will not lead to any appeal in courts.
- Dismissal of all writ petitions as petitioners are not entitled to the claimed reliefs.
- Court not granting relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, advises making representations to the State of Bihar.
Case Title: NIRBHAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2020 INSC 423)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000227 / 2019
