Supreme Court Denies Parity in Sub-Inspector Appointments: Nirbhay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 11 June 2020

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can candidates who did not participate in or failed a physical test for a government job claim the same benefits as those who were exempted from it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning appointments for Sub-Inspectors in the State of Bihar. The court had to decide if certain candidates, who either did not appear for or failed the physical test, could claim parity with a specific group of candidates who were exempted from this test. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, M.R. Shah, and V. Ramasubramanian, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a series of events related to the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Bihar. It began with an advertisement in 2004 for 1510 posts, which included a physical test followed by a written examination. Due to errors in the answer keys, the results were challenged, leading to multiple rounds of litigation. The Supreme Court intervened, directing a fresh examination for 299 posts, initially for a limited number of candidates, which was later expanded. This led to further complications when some candidates were exempted from the physical test. The petitioners in the present case are those who either did not appear for or failed the physical test in the 2011 selection process, and they are now claiming parity with those who were exempted.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the selection process for Sub-Inspectors in 2004 was challenged in the Patna High Court due to errors in the model answer keys. This led to the appointment of an expert committee and the removal of 160 candidates, who were later reinstated. Further litigation resulted in the Supreme Court directing a fresh examination for 299 posts. The Supreme Court clarified that all similarly situated candidates could appear for the fresh examination. This order led to advertisement No. 511 of 2011. The court also dealt with issues related to the appointment of 186 candidates to accommodate 67 candidates from the most backward category. The present case arises from the claims of candidates who did not participate in or failed the physical test in the 2011 selection process, seeking parity with 133 candidates who were exempted from the physical test by a specific order of the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

This case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. The case also touches upon principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court’s previous orders, especially those relating to the 133 candidates, are central to the legal framework. The petitioners are essentially claiming a violation of Article 14 by not being given the same treatment as the 133 candidates. However, the Court has clarified that the order regarding the 133 candidates was passed under Article 142 and was not to be treated as a precedent.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that they were part of the original 223 candidates who were permitted to participate in the selection process for 299 posts as per the Supreme Court’s order dated 02.02.2011.
• They contended that since 133 candidates were appointed without undergoing the physical test, they should also receive the same benefit.
• They claimed parity with the 133 candidates, asserting that they were similarly situated and should not be subjected to a different standard.
• Some petitioners argued that they had cleared the physical test in the 2004 selection and should be exempted from the 2011 test, similar to the 133 candidates.
• It was also argued that some petitioners had secured more marks than the 133 candidates.
• The petitioners also submitted that there were 67 vacant posts where they could be accommodated.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Bihar and Bihar Staff Selection Commission):

• The respondents argued that the order regarding the 133 candidates was a specific order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and was explicitly stated not to be treated as a precedent.
• They contended that the petitioners either did not appear for the physical test or failed it in the 2011 selection process, making them ineligible for appointment.
• The respondents emphasized that the petitioners could not claim parity with the 133 candidates, who were treated as a special category due to the unique circumstances of their case.
• They argued that the selection process for 299 posts had already been completed, and only those who cleared both the physical and written tests were included in the select list.
• The Commission stated that out of 3227 eligible candidates, only 2192 appeared for the physical test, and only 232 cleared it, with 97 finally selected.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the petitioners, who did not participate in or failed the physical test for the 2011 Sub-Inspector selection, could claim parity with the 133 candidates who were exempted from the physical test by a specific order of the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

1. Orders of the Supreme Court:
   • Order dated 02.02.2011 in C.A.Nos.1240-1241 of 2011: This order directed a fresh examination for 299 posts.
   • Order dated 28.11.2011: This order permitted all similarly situated candidates to appear for the examination.
   • Order dated 05.05.2017 in C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017: This order directed the physical test to proceed.
   • Order dated 14.09.2017 in C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017: This order directed that 1035 candidates who did not turn up for selection be subjected to Physical test, including 133 candidates.
   • Order dated 24.10.2018 in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2018: This order clarified that the 133 candidates should not be subjected to another written or physical test.
   • Order dated 01.11.2018: This order rejected the impleadment applications and stated that any representation by the applicants would not give rise to any legal proceedings.
2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The Court invoked this article to justify the special treatment given to the 133 candidates, emphasizing that the order was not to be treated as a precedent.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied heavily on its previous orders, especially the order regarding the 133 candidates, and Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the order regarding the 133 candidates was passed in the peculiar background of the litigation and was not to be treated as a precedent. The Court also highlighted that the petitioners did not meet the requirements for appointment in the 2011 selection process.

The court specifically stated:

“…This Court having carved out and classified 133 candidates into a specific category and placed them along with 186 candidates, there cannot be any other procedure than the medical examination. Therefore, to remove any doubt on this aspect, we make it clear that the only remaining process to be undergone by the 133 candidates is the process to which the 186 candidates were subjected to… We make it clear that this order and all the earlier orders regarding the selection and appointment of the 133 candidates are passed in the peculiar background of the litigation starting from the advertisement in the year 2004 and several rounds of litigations during the past fourteen years, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Non-Precedential Nature of the Order: The Court emphasized that the order regarding the 133 candidates was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and was explicitly stated not to be treated as a precedent. This was a crucial factor in rejecting the petitioners’ claim for parity.
• Failure to Meet Selection Criteria: The petitioners either did not participate in or failed the physical test for the 2011 selection. The Court considered this a significant factor in denying their claim for appointment.
• Finality of the Selection Process: The Court noted that the selection process for the 299 posts had already been completed, and only those who cleared both the physical and written tests were included in the select list.
• Avoiding Unending Litigation: The Court was concerned that granting the petitioners’ claim would open the floodgates for similar claims from numerous other candidates who did not meet the selection criteria, leading to an unending process.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The primary legal consideration was the non-precedential nature of the order under Article 142, while the factual considerations were the petitioners’ failure to meet the selection criteria.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• No Parity for Non-Qualifying Candidates: Candidates who do not meet the selection criteria (such as failing or not appearing for physical tests) cannot claim parity with those who were specifically exempted under special circumstances.
• Article 142 Orders are Not Precedents: Orders passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are specific to the facts of the case and are not to be treated as precedents for other cases.
• Finality of Selection Processes: Once a selection process is completed, candidates who did not qualify cannot claim appointment based on parity with those who were exempted due to unique circumstances.
• Importance of Meeting Selection Criteria: Candidates must meet all the required criteria in the selection process to be considered for appointment.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court dismissed all the writ petitions.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a specific order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, which explicitly states that it is not to be treated as a precedent, cannot be used to claim parity by other candidates who do not meet the selection criteria. This judgment reinforces the principle that such orders are specific to the facts of the case and do not create a general legal principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment as Sub-Inspectors in Bihar. The Court held that these candidates, who either did not appear for or failed the physical test, could not claim parity with 133 candidates who were exempted from the physical test by a specific order of the Court. The Court emphasized that the order regarding the 133 candidates was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and was not to be treated as a precedent. This judgment clarifies that candidates must meet all the required criteria in the selection process and cannot claim parity based on special exemptions granted in unique circumstances.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Appointment
• Parity
• Physical Test
• Article 142, Constitution of India
• Selection Process

FAQ

Q: Can I claim a job if I didn’t pass the required tests, just because someone else was exempted?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that if you didn’t meet the required criteria for a job (like passing a physical test), you can’t claim the job just because someone else was exempted under special circumstances.

Q: What does it mean when a court order says it’s “not a precedent”?

A: It means that the order is specific to that particular case and cannot be used as a general rule for other similar cases.

Q: If I was allowed to apply for a job, does that mean I’m guaranteed to get it?

A: No, being allowed to apply doesn’t guarantee a job. You still need to meet all the required criteria, like passing tests and interviews.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution?

A: Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case. However, these orders are often specific to the case and not to be treated as precedents.

Q: What should I do if I didn’t meet the selection criteria for a job?

A: You should focus on meeting the criteria for future job applications. The court has made it clear that not meeting the criteria is a valid reason for not getting the job.