Supreme Court strikes down Bihar rule for judicial exam selection: Rahul Dutta vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Arun Mishra J. and Navin Sinha J.

Can a state government arbitrarily limit the number of candidates eligible for the final stage of a judicial service exam? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) examination. The Court examined a rule that restricted the number of candidates for the final written exam to just 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary exam. This judgment clarifies the importance of maintaining a competitive field for judicial service appointments. The bench comprised of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case arose from a challenge to the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, specifically Rule 5A(3), which was inserted via notification dated 28.12.2016. This rule stipulated that only 10% of the candidates who appeared for the preliminary examination would qualify for the final written examination. The petitioners, candidates for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, argued that this rule was arbitrary and violated the principles established by the Supreme Court in previous cases. They contended that the selection process should follow the ratio of 1:10 of available vacancies to successful candidates as per the judgment in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others*, (2008) 17 SCC 703.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limited the number of candidates qualifying for the final written exam to 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary exam. The petitioners argued that this rule was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*, which prescribed a ratio of 1:10 of available vacancies to successful candidates for the final written exam. The State of Bihar had also proposed an amendment to the rules, which was pending before the High Court of Patna.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question was Rule 5A of The Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955. Specifically, Rule 5A(3) stated:

“Eligible candidates for the written examination shall be selected on the basis of the result of the Preliminary Test, to the extent of 10% of the total number of appeared candidates, rounded off to the nearest hundred; and all candidates obtaining equal marks as the last candidate’s shall also qualify for the written examination;
Provided that in the event of candidates from the reserved categories, other than the General category, falling short of the percentages fixed for them in the State Government Services under the relevant Act vis-a-vis the total number of successful candidates in the Preliminary Test, so many candidates from those categories shall be additionally included, to the extent of the deficit, as per their respective merit, in the list of the successful candidates to take the written examination.”

The petitioners relied on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*, which mandated a ratio of 1:10 of available vacancies to successful candidates for the final written examination after the preliminary examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limits the number of candidates for the final written examination to 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary examination, is arbitrary and violates the directions given by the Supreme Court in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*.
• They contended that the Supreme Court had specified a ratio of 1:10 of available vacancies to successful candidates for the final written examination after the preliminary examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment.
• The petitioners submitted that the 10% rule unreasonably restricts the number of candidates who can compete in the final examination, thereby reducing the competitive field.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Bihar Public Service Commission, did not specifically defend the 10% rule but acknowledged the need to fix minimum passing marks for the preliminary examination.
• They also assured the court that they would ensure minimum passing marks are fixed under the Rules for the preliminary examination separately for general as well as for reserved category in a reasonable manner for future examinations.
• The respondents submitted that the cut-off marks calculated by the Bihar Public Service Commission were reasonable and that the deficiency in the rule of not prescribing passing marks in the preliminary examination would not cause any invalidity in the examination already held.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limits the number of candidates for the final written examination to 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary examination, is valid and in line with the directions of the Supreme Court in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the directions given in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others*, (2008) 17 SCC 703, to strike down Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955. The Court held that the 1:10 ratio of available vacancies to successful candidates for the final written examination after the preliminary examination as specified in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*, was binding and that the 10% rule was in violation of this ratio.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and competitive selection process for judicial appointments. The Court found that Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limited the number of candidates for the final written examination to 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary examination, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the directions given in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*. The Court emphasized that a competitive field is essential for selecting the best candidates for judicial service.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the arguments that the 10% rule was arbitrary and restricted the competitive field. It rejected the argument that the cut-off marks calculated by the Bihar Public Service Commission were reasonable, noting that the rule itself was flawed. The Court also considered the fact that no minimum passing marks were prescribed for the preliminary examination. The court did not fix the minimum passing marks for the current exam, as the exam was already over. The court also took into account the fact that the State of Bihar had proposed an amendment to the rules.

The court stated, “The fixation of 10% of the total number of appeared candidates in preliminary examination to be called for final written examination is otherwise also arbitrary and unreasonable as the same substantially restricts the number of candidates to stake their claim in the final examination.”

The court further noted, “The ratio approximately is 1:1 whereas it has to be 1:10. Whereas in unreserved category the total number of candidates called by operation of the aforesaid Rule 5A(3) is 902. For approximately 175 seats reserved for General Category the number of candidates which are refixed to be called is in the ratio of 1:10 to the number of vacancies would be 1750, so also for reserved category.”

The Court also observed, “Apart from that there is yet another glaring error in the Rule that no minimum passing marks have been prescribed in preliminary examination. The ratio of 1:10 is only applicable when these number of successful candidates are available and obtaining of the minimum passing marks in preliminary examination should be necessary, out of the successful candidates available out of them in the ratio of 1:10 are required to be called for final written examination.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Arun Mishra, with Justice Navin Sinha concurring.

Key Takeaways

• Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which limited the number of candidates for the final written examination to 10% of those who appeared in the preliminary examination, was struck down.
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the ratio of calling candidates for the final examination after the preliminary examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment should be 1:10 of the available vacancies to the successful candidates, as per the directions in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*.
• The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a competitive field for judicial service appointments.
• Minimum passing marks must be prescribed for preliminary examinations in judicial service recruitments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar, the High Court of Patna, and the Bihar Public Service Commission to ensure that minimum passing marks are fixed under the Rules for the preliminary examination separately for general as well as for reserved categories in a reasonable manner for future examinations. The Court also directed that the final written examination be held within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any rule that arbitrarily restricts the number of candidates for the final written examination in judicial service recruitments, especially when it violates the directions given by the Supreme Court in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*, is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that a competitive field must be maintained in such recruitments. The judgment also clarifies that minimum passing marks must be prescribed for preliminary examinations in judicial service recruitments.

This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the directions given in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Rahul Dutta vs. State of Bihar* struck down Rule 5A(3) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, which arbitrarily limited the number of candidates for the final written examination. The Court upheld the principle that the selection process must maintain a competitive field and adhere to the 1:10 ratio of available vacancies to successful candidates as directed in *Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)*. This judgment ensures fairness and equal opportunity for candidates aspiring to join the judicial service in Bihar.