Date of the Judgment: 16 July 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 531
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, J.
Can a candidate be disqualified from a selection process if they score the minimum qualifying marks in the written exam but fail to achieve an aggregate minimum score when experience marks are added? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of City Managers in Bihar. The court clarified that the minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written examination, and candidates who meet this threshold are eligible for consideration, regardless of their experience marks. This judgment settles a dispute regarding the interpretation of the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale concurring.
Case Background
The case revolves around the selection process for the post of City Manager in Bihar, governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (appellants) issued an advertisement on 15 November 2016, for 152 City Manager posts. The advertisement specified that the selection would be based on a written examination (70 marks) and experience (30 marks for candidates working on contract). The minimum qualifying marks for the written test were set at 32% for SC/ST and female candidates. Himal Kumari (Respondent No. 1), who had no prior work experience, appeared for the written exam and scored 22.575 marks out of 70. The Commission declared her unsuccessful, stating that she did not meet the minimum qualifying marks of 32% out of the total 100 marks (written test plus experience). Respondent No. 1 argued that the 32% minimum was applicable only to the written test, which she had cleared with 32.14% (22.5/70).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15 November 2016 | Advertisement issued for 152 City Manager posts. |
| Unknown Date | Respondent No. 1 appeared for the written examination. |
| 27 December 2019 | Appellants declared Respondent No. 1 unsuccessful. |
| 15 October 2020 | Single Judge of the Patna High Court allowed Respondent No. 1’s writ petition. |
| 20 December 2022 | Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants. |
| 16 July 2024 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants. |
Course of Proceedings
The Single Judge of the Patna High Court ruled in favor of Respondent No. 1, stating that the minimum qualifying marks applied only to the written test. The court directed the appellants to consider her case for appointment. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. Some other candidates also filed appeals, stating that despite having experience and scoring more marks than Respondent No. 1, they would be adversely affected by the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing that the executive order relied upon by the appellants was not applicable to the 2014 Rules.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The relevant rules are:
- Rule 5: “Process of Recruitment, appointment and procedure of Recruitment: – (1) Appointment to the basic category of these posts in this cadre, will be by direct Recruitment (written examination) on the recommendation of the Commission. Total 100 marks will be determined for direct Recruitment. Out of total 100 marks, 70 marks will be determined for the written examination. 10 marks for experience for every year and a maxi -mum 30 marks shall be given for the appointment to the post of City Manager working on contract basis.” This rule outlines that the appointment will be based on direct recruitment through a written exam, with a total of 100 marks, 70 for the exam and 30 for experience.
- Rule 11: “Residual matters. – Rules, regulations and orders of the State Government for employees of suitable level will apply for members of this cadre with regard to the matters particularly not covered in these Rules or any regulations made under these Rules.” This rule states that for matters not covered in the 2014 Rules, other state government rules will apply.
The advertisement issued by the appellants also specified the selection process and qualifying marks:
- The commission will prepare a merit list on the basis of written examination and experience.
- Total 100 marks will be determined for direct Recruitment. The written examination will be conducted of 100 questions and each question carrying 0.70 marks.
- Candidates working on contract basis on the post of City Manager will be given 10 marks per year and maximum 30 marks for their experience.
- Minimum qualifying marks for the written test are: General Class – 40%, Backward Class – 36.5%, Most Backward Class – 34%, SC/ST – 32%, Female – 32%.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants argued that the minimum qualifying marks of 32% should be considered out of the total 100 marks (written test plus experience), not just the written test.
- They relied on an Executive Order dated 16 July 2007, which prescribed uniform minimum qualifying marks for various competitive examinations, including a minimum of 32% for SC/ST and women categories.
- They contended that the Executive Order could be used to clarify any ambiguities in the 2014 Rules.
Respondent No. 1’s Submissions:
- Respondent No. 1 argued that the minimum qualifying marks of 32% applied only to the written test, as stated in the advertisement.
- She contended that she scored 32.14% in the written test (22.5/70), which is above the minimum qualifying marks.
- She argued that the Executive Order of 2007 was not applicable to the 2014 Rules.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Qualifying Marks | Minimum qualifying marks should be out of 100 (written + experience). | Appellants |
| Minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written test (70 marks). | Respondent No. 1 | |
| Applicability of Executive Order | Executive Order of 2007 clarifies ambiguities in the 2014 Rules. | Appellants |
| Executive Order of 2007 is not applicable to the 2014 Rules. | Respondent No. 1 |
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 minimum qualifying marks of 32% for the City Manager post in Bihar apply to the written examination alone or to the total marks (written examination plus experience).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the minimum qualifying marks of 32% for the City Manager post in Bihar apply to the written examination alone or to the total marks (written examination plus experience). | The Court held that the minimum qualifying marks of 32% apply only to the written examination. The Court reasoned that a harmonious reading of the Rules, 2014, and the advertisement indicates that the minimum qualifying marks are specific to the written test. The merit list is prepared based on the combined score of the written test and experience, but the eligibility is determined by the marks obtained in the written test alone. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 | – | The court interpreted Rules 5 and 11 to determine the selection process. |
| Advertisement dated 15.11.2016 | – | The court used the advertisement to determine the qualifying marks for the written test. |
| Executive Order dated 16.07.2007 | – | The court discarded the applicability of the Executive Order as it was prior to the 2014 Rules and could not supplant them. |
| Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 392 | Supreme Court of India | The court distinguished this case, stating that it actually supported the view that statutory rules prevail over executive decisions. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Minimum qualifying marks should be out of 100 (written + experience) | Rejected. The court held that the minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written test. |
| Minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written test (70 marks). | Accepted. The court agreed that a score of 32% in the written test is sufficient for eligibility. |
| Executive Order of 2007 clarifies ambiguities in the 2014 Rules. | Rejected. The court held that the Executive Order was not applicable to the 2014 Rules. |
| Executive Order of 2007 is not applicable to the 2014 Rules. | Accepted. The court concurred that the Executive Order could not supplant the 2014 Rules. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014: The Court gave primacy to these rules, interpreting them to mean that the minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written test.
- Advertisement dated 15.11.2016: The Court relied on the advertisement to determine the qualifying marks for the written test, stating that it supports the interpretation that 32% is required for the written test only.
- Executive Order dated 16.07.2007: The Court discarded this order, stating that it was not applicable to the 2014 Rules and could not supplant them.
- Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 392: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it actually supports the view that statutory rules prevail over executive decisions, and thus supported the respondent’s case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a harmonious interpretation of the Rules, 2014, and the advertisement. The Court noted that the advertisement clearly specified the minimum qualifying marks for the written test and that the merit list would be prepared based on the total marks, including experience. The Court also highlighted that the Executive Order of 2007 could not be used to alter the rules framed in 2014. The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the textual interpretation of the relevant rules and advertisement, giving primacy to the statutory rules over the executive order.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Textual Interpretation of Rules and Advertisement | 40% |
| Primacy of Statutory Rules over Executive Orders | 35% |
| Harmonious Construction of Rules and Advertisement | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Issue: Whether minimum qualifying marks apply to written test alone or total marks?
Consideration 1: Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014
Consideration 2: Advertisement specifying qualifying marks
Consideration 3: Executive Order of 2007
Decision: Minimum qualifying marks apply to written test only. Executive Order not applicable.
The court’s reasoning was that the rules and advertisement specified that 32% was the minimum qualifying mark for the written examination. The court also stated that the executive order of 2007 could not be used to supplant the rules of 2014. The court stated that the merit list was to be prepared based on the combined marks of the written test and experience, but the eligibility criteria was based on the written test alone. The court also mentioned that the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 392 actually supported the respondent’s case as it stated that statutory rules prevail over executive orders.
The court quoted from the judgment:
- “A conjoint reading of the Rules, 2014 in particular rules 5 and 11, with the advertisement and giving it a pragmatic and harmonious construction, what emerges is that 32% in the written examination would make a candidate eligible and qualified to be placed in the consideration zone.”
- “The required minimum qualifying marks are concerned with marks obtained in the written test only, as is evident from the Rules 2014 as also the advertisement, and it has no relevance so far as for the final preparation of the merit list.”
- “In the present case the view taken by the High Court is also giving primacy to the Rules 2014 as compared to an earlier executive decision dated 16.07.2007. In fact the above judgment helps respondent no.1.”
There were no dissenting opinions. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.
Key Takeaways
- Minimum qualifying marks for the post of City Manager in Bihar apply only to the written examination.
- Candidates who score the minimum qualifying marks in the written test are eligible for consideration, regardless of their experience marks.
- Executive orders cannot supplant statutory rules, especially if they predate the rules.
- The merit list will be prepared based on the combined score of the written test and experience, but the eligibility is determined by the marks obtained in the written test alone.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but upheld the High Court’s order to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for appointment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the minimum qualifying marks for a selection process apply only to the specific component of the test for which they are prescribed, and that executive orders cannot supplant statutory rules. This case clarifies the interpretation of the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, and reinforces the principle that statutory rules take precedence over executive orders. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but rather a clarification of the existing legal framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Patna High Court’s decision. The Court held that the minimum qualifying marks for the City Manager post in Bihar apply only to the written examination, and candidates who meet this threshold are eligible for consideration. This judgment clarifies the selection criteria and ensures that candidates who meet the minimum requirements are not unfairly excluded from the selection process.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Recruitment Rules
Child Category: Minimum Qualifying Marks
Child Category: Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014
Parent Category: Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014
Child Category: Rule 5, Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014
Child Category: Rule 11, Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the minimum qualifying marks for the City Manager post in Bihar applied only to the written examination or to the total marks (written exam plus experience).
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the minimum qualifying marks apply only to the written examination. Candidates who meet this threshold are eligible for consideration.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that candidates cannot be disqualified if they score the minimum qualifying marks in the written exam, even if they do not have experience marks. It also reinforces that statutory rules take precedence over executive orders.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment for future selection processes?
A: This judgment ensures that selection processes are conducted fairly and that candidates who meet the minimum requirements are not unfairly excluded. It also clarifies the interpretation of the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014.