Bihar Police Recruitment: 17 Yrs On, High Court Grants Relief To 252 Candidates Denied Post Despite Higher Merit
The Patna High Court directed the State to appoint 252 candidates as Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Police under a 2004 advertisment, holding that denying them appointment despite having higher marks than 133 already appointed candidates violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel delivered the judgment while allowing three writ...
The Patna High Court directed the State to appoint 252 candidates as Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Police under a 2004 advertisment, holding that denying them appointment despite having higher marks than 133 already appointed candidates violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Justice Arvind Singh Chandel delivered the judgment while allowing three writ petitions filed by unsuccessful aspirants who had cleared both physical and written tests but were left out of the final list.
The high court further said that the state authorities should have been more reasonable while not discriminating against petitioners who are on a better footing as they had obtained more marks than the 133 candidates.
"Though the order of appointment of 133 candidates have been passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it does not prohibit to appoint the persons who secured more marks than the 133 candidates. In the considered view of this Court, the appointment of a person with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured higher marks is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India".
The court further considered that the petitioners had passed physical test held in 2006, appeared in the written test and qualified and prima facie noted that it appeared that the petitioners had "secured more marks under the respective categories than the 133 candidates" who were appointed pursuant to the order passed by Supreme Court.
"...further taking into consideration the fact that in the year, 2023 and 2024 also, some of the candidates were appointed by the respondents under the recruitment process of 2004, I am of the view that on the ground of equity, the petitioners are also entitled to get their appointment as they have secured more marks than the 133 candidates. Depriving the petitioners of their appointment would be grave and irreparable prejudice to them," the court said.
"Respondents ought to have acted with more reasonableness and in accordance with the legal principles discussed above without causing discrimination and prejudice to any candidate who are similarly situated with other appointed candidates rather on better footing as they have obtained more marks than the 133 appointed candidates, as mentioned above," the court added.
The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) had advertised 1510 Sub-Inspector posts in 2004. The petitioners cleared the physical test (2006) and written test (2008). But due to errors in questions and subsequent litigation, the process became mired in court battles.
Over time, the State adjusted vacancies, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. In Chandra Gupta Kumar v. State of Bihar (2017) the Supreme Court directed continuation of the process. Later, in three 2017 civil appeals the Apex Court, invoking Article 142, in its 14.09.2017 order directed the appointment of 133 candidates.
Those 133 were later appointed after only medical fitness tests, following a contempt order of the Supreme Court in 2018.
The petitioners argued that they had scored higher marks than many of the 133 appointed candidates, yet were denied equal treatment. Relying on Ahswani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997), they submitted that similarly situated persons must be treated alike even if they had not approached the Court.
They also pointed out that the recruitment process of 2004 had not been “closed,” since even in 2023 and 2024, candidates were appointed under the same 2004 advertisement (pursuant to Dinesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Mala v. BSSC).
The State argued that the 133 appointments were made solely because of a Supreme Court direction under Article 142, which was case-specific and not a precedent.
Allowing the petitions the court directed, "The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioners against the vacancies at the earliest for the post of Sub Inspector under Advertisement No 704 of 2004, if they are found medically fit".
The court directed the process be completed in 6 weeks.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.2372/2023 & connected writs)
Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2372 of 2023