This blog delves into the recent court ruling on document verification in recruitment cases, where the focus is on the legal analysis provided by the court. The case involved the cancellation of candidatures due to the non-submission of original documents, sparking a debate on the legality and severity of such decisions. Stay tuned to understand the key legal implications and considerations in recruitment processes.
Facts
- Several candidates had their candidatures cancelled by the Commission on 27.11.2019 for not producing original certificates.
- Shortcomings were noticed for 8 candidates including failure to submit original certificates like degree of law, character certificate, and No Objection Certificate.
- The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition directing the State Government to fill vacant posts due to non-joining of recommended candidates.
- The direction of the High Court conflicted with interim orders passed by another court.
- Some candidates did not turn up for counseling or joining despite being recommended.
- Appellants argued that they provided attested true copies of certificates and later submitted originals before the Commission meeting.
- Candidates were admitted based on their higher marks, but their candidatures were cancelled for not fulfilling original document requirements.
- The Commission cancelled candidatures of as many as 58 candidates for failing to produce original documents at the time of interview.
- Rejected candidates approached the Patna High Court, but their petitions were dismissed.
- The Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the petition of some appellants on 04.05.2021.
- Subsequently, other petitions of the remaining appellants were also dismissed.
Also Read: Balancing Private Grievances and Public Interests
Arguments
- Non-furnishing of the original certificate at the time of interview is not mandatory or crucial.
- The requirement of submitting the originals does not directly impact qualification or eligibility.
- Verification and vigilance reports are obtained by the State before appointment or during probation, even if originals are not submitted.
- Submission of original certificates/documents at the time of interview does not significantly affect the government’s vigilance and verification procedures.
- The decision of the Commission rejecting the candidature was deemed illegal, unwarranted, unreasonable, and excessively severe.
Also Read: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Insufficient Allegations
Analysis
- The rejection of the candidates was deemed improper, unjustified, and unwarranted by the court.
- Vacancies are available, and filling them with meritorious candidates would benefit the institution by aiding in the disposal of pending cases.
- The adjustment of eight appellants against the vacancies of Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 is being considered.
- Seven vacancies became available due to candidates not participating in counseling or joining post-appointment, leading to their candidature cancellation by the State Government.
- Three candidates affected may be adjusted against future vacancies or the State may borrow three posts from future vacancies to fill the gaps.
- The State has the discretion to accommodate the three appellants belonging to the EBC, SC, and BC categories.
- The State can choose the manner in which to address this issue or any other mode it deems fit.
- The appointment/selection of already serving Judicial officers appointed against Advertisement No 6 of 2018 will not be affected.
Also Read: Reversal of Acquittal: High Court Convicts Accused in Murder Case
Decision
- Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
- No order as to costs shall be made.
- The appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned decision of the Commission dated 27.11.2019 and the impugned judgments of the High Court.
- All incremental benefits of the intervening period will be notionally available, with no arrears to be paid.
- The Interlocutory Application for directions stands rejected.
- The eight appellants will be entitled to their seniority as per their merit, with no arrears of salary for the intervening period but entitlement from the date of joining.
- Interim orders were passed regarding keeping posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vacant until the disposal of certain cases.
- The BPSC has applied to modify the judgment considering the interim orders passed by the court.
- The High Court allowed the petition of Swati Chaturvedi and directed the State Government to send requisition for one post to the BPSC for her appointment.
- The State of Bihar’s SLP against the judgment in Swati Chaturvedi’s case was dismissed, allowing her to join.
Case Title: AARAV JAIN Vs. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (2022 INSC 624)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004242-004242 / 2022
