Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Candidates Rejected for Not Submitting Original Documents: Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (23 May 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23 May 2022
Citation: [Not provided in the document]
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) could reject candidates for not submitting original documents at the time of the interview, even if they submitted attested copies and later provided the originals. The Court considered appeals from candidates who were rejected despite scoring higher than the last selected candidates in their respective categories. This judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued Advertisement No. 6 of 2018 on 23 August 2018, for the recruitment of 349 Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts. The posts were divided into categories: 175 for General/Unreserved, 56 for Scheduled Castes (SC), 3 for Scheduled Tribes (ST), 73 for Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), and 42 for Backward Classes (BC). The selection process included a Screening Test, Written Test, and Interview. After the selection process, the Commission recommended 349 candidates on 2 December 2019. However, some candidates did not join, leading to the cancellation of seven candidatures. The appellants in this case were among those whose candidatures were cancelled due to not producing original certificates at the time of interview, despite having secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the candidates whose candidatures were cancelled by the BPSC. The High Court upheld the BPSC’s decision that the candidates’ failure to produce original documents at the time of the interview was a valid reason for cancellation. Aggrieved by the Patna High Court’s judgment, eight candidates filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeals.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the conditions set by the BPSC in its advertisement and interview call letters. The key issue is whether the requirement to submit original certificates at the time of the interview was mandatory and whether non-compliance justified the cancellation of candidature, even when the candidates had submitted attested copies and later provided the original documents. The Court also considered the general principles of government employment, where verification of documents is typically conducted at later stages, such as during probation.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they had submitted attested copies of the required certificates at the time of the interview and had later submitted the originals. They contended that the requirement to submit originals at the interview was not related to their qualifications or eligibility. They further argued that the government conducts verification checks during probation, making the non-submission of originals at the interview a technicality. The appellants emphasized that they had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories and that their rejection was unreasonable and too harsh.

The BPSC and the State argued that they could not relax the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, brochure, or interview call letter. They contended that any relaxation would violate their prescribed procedure. They maintained that the candidates were aware of the requirement to submit original documents at the time of the interview and that their failure to do so justified the rejection of their candidatures.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the rejection of the candidates’ candidatures for not producing original certificates at the time of the interview was justified, despite the candidates having submitted attested copies and later providing the originals, and having secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any cases or books relied upon by the court. The court primarily focused on the specific facts of the case and the conduct of the BPSC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the BPSC’s decision to reject the candidates and the Patna High Court’s judgments upholding the BPSC’s decision. The Court held that the rejection was improper, unjustified, and not warranted, considering that the candidates had submitted attested copies of the required documents at the time of the interview and later provided the originals.

The Court also considered the availability of vacancies and directed that the five candidates from the unreserved category be adjusted against the available vacancies. For the three candidates from EBC, SC, and BC categories, the Court directed the State to either adjust them against future vacancies or borrow three posts from future vacancies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The candidates had submitted attested copies of the required documents at the time of the interview.
• The candidates had later submitted the original documents.
• The requirement to submit original documents at the time of the interview was a technicality, as the government conducts verification checks during probation.
• The candidates had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories.
• The availability of vacancies.

The Court emphasized that the rejection of the candidates was too harsh given that they had substantially complied with the requirements and had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates. The Court also noted that there were vacancies available and that appointing these meritorious candidates would be beneficial for the institution.

The Court stated,

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the respective argument we are of the considered view that the rejection of the candidates was improper, unjustified and not warranted.”

The Court further observed,

“We have also taken note of the fact that there are vacancies available, which if filled up by meritorious candidates would only be an asset for the institution helping in disposal of cases pending in huge numbers.”

The Court also clarified,

“The eight appellants would be entitled to their respective seniority as per their merit; however, they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the intervening period, but would be entitled to the same from the date of their joining. They would be forthwith allowed to join. All incremental and other benefits of the intervening period would be notionally available to them, but no arrears would be paid.”

Key Takeaways

• Government bodies should not reject candidates solely on technical grounds when substantial compliance is evident.
• Verification of documents can be done at later stages of the selection process.
• Meritorious candidates should not be deprived of their appointments for minor procedural lapses.
• The Court has shown a willingness to ensure that deserving candidates are not denied opportunities due to technicalities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The five candidates from the unreserved category are to be adjusted against the available vacancies.
• The State may either adjust the three candidates from EBC, SC, and BC categories against future vacancies or borrow three posts from future vacancies, one each in respective categories.
• The eight appellants are entitled to their respective seniority as per their merit.
• The eight appellants are not entitled to any arrears of salary for the intervening period, but are entitled to the same from the date of their joining.
• The eight appellants are to be allowed to join forthwith.
• All incremental and other benefits of the intervening period would be notionally available to them, but no arrears would be paid.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the rejection of a candidate for not submitting original documents at the time of the interview is not justified if the candidate has submitted attested copies and later provides the originals, especially when the candidate has secured higher marks than the last selected candidate. This judgment emphasizes a more practical approach to selection processes, focusing on merit and substantial compliance rather than strict adherence to technicalities. This ruling clarifies that verification of documents can be conducted at later stages and minor procedural lapses should not deprive deserving candidates of their appointments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of merit and substantial compliance in government recruitment processes. The Court’s intervention ensures that deserving candidates are not unfairly excluded due to minor technicalities, setting a precedent for a more equitable approach to recruitment. The judgment highlights that government bodies should focus on the substance of a candidate’s qualifications and performance rather than being overly rigid about procedural requirements.