Service Law – Appointment – Advertisement issued in 2004 for appointment to 1510 posts of Sub-Inspector in the State of Bihar – Several rounds of litigation – Result of select list of 1510+639 (vacancies added later) i.e. 2149 was declared and the appointments were made – High Court in a writ petition issued further direction to appoint 67 candidates belonging to most backward category who were wrongly left out – State appointed those 67 and to retain those who were to be displaced decided to appoint 186 more candidates – Appointment of 186 candidates challenged in High Court – Matter ultimately came to Supreme Court – 186 candidates were subjected only to medical fitness test in the process of appointment since they had already cleared the physical efficiency test in 2006 – Further,
133 candidates who had also cleared the physical efficiency test in 2006, were classified into a specific category and placed along with 186 candidates by Supreme Court and appointed under its orders by subjecting them only to medical test and not physical test – Writ petitioners herein claimed appointment in pursuance of advertisement dtd.28.06.11 for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police – Petitioners sought parity with the aforesaid 133 candidates claiming they were all part of list of 223 original candidates permitted to participate in selection against 299 posts by order of Supreme Court – Held: It was made very clear that the order of this Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates was passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.142 and the same shall not be treated as a precedent – Thus, no benefit can be claimed of the said order by writ petitioners especially when otherwise they are not able to satisfy this Court that when they have either not undertaken the physical test or have failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage – Petitioners not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions.
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court made it very clear that order of this Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates are passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated as a Precedent. The petitioners are claiming that they should be extended the same benefit of not being subjected to physical test as the exemption was granted with regard to 133 candidates. There is more than one reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner. Firstly, there has been specific order with regard to
133 candidates for not subjecting them to the physical test and directing their appointment without physical test which this Court had categorically held to be not treated as Precedent. The order when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent, no benefit can be claimed of the said order by the writ petitioner in the present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ petitioners are not able to satisfy this Court that when they have either not undertaken the physical test or failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage. [Paras 16, 17][666-G-H; 667-A-C]
1.2 The Counter affidavit filed by the Commission categorically states that for selection against 299 posts, 2192 candidates turned up for selection and only 232 cleared the physical test. The order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court passed in C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017 has also noticed the number of the candidates who were to subjected to the process of selection for
299 posts which number was mentioned 2479 candidates. From the order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court, it is further clear that 1035 candidates did not turned up for selection, this Court directed for them also to be subjected to physical test, thus, there are large number of candidates who did not take physical test or took the physical test and failed. Directing for appointment of all those candidates which includes the petitioners also who did not take the physical test or took the physical test and failed shall be an unending process and there are more than thousand of such candidates who may claim that although they did not take physical test or failed in physical test in pursuance of selection of 299 posts, they should be appointed they being similarly situated to
133 candidates. [Para 18][667-C-F]
1.3 The Court by order dated 01.11.2018 clearly indicated that in event the State of Bihar does not accede to the representation of applicants claiming similar relief to 133 candidates that shall not give rise to any proceedings in any of the Courts. The Court is not persuaded to grant the said relief in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions. [Paras 20-21][668-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.