Supreme Court Upholds Requirement for Document Submission with Application: State of Bihar vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a candidate claim additional marks for a certificate if they did not submit it with their original application? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning the appointment of constables in the Bihar Police Force. The court clarified that candidates must adhere strictly to the requirements specified in the advertisement, including submitting all necessary documents with their application. This judgment emphasizes the importance of following application guidelines and the cut-off dates for submitting required documents, and it impacts how recruitment processes are handled. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

In 2004, the Bihar Police Force issued an advertisement (No. 1/2004) on 08 February 2004, for the recruitment of constables. The advertisement specified that applicants must submit self-attested copies of all necessary documents along with their application forms. It also stated that original certificates must be produced before the Selection Council at the time of appointment. The advertisement also provided for additional marks: five for an NCC ‘B’ certificate and ten for an NCC ‘C’ certificate.

Madhu Kant Ranjan, the original writ petitioner, applied for the post. He participated in the re-measurement and physical test on 08 September 2006, following another advertisement. He did not submit his NCC certificate with either his initial or second application. As a result, he scored 12 marks. Ranjan then approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arguing that he should have received five additional marks for his NCC ‘B’ certificate, which would have raised his total score to 17.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to issue any positive direction, noting that Ranjan had not pleaded that he had submitted his NCC ‘B’ certificate with his original application. The judge did, however, state that if Ranjan had submitted the certificate after the physical test but before the publication of results, the matter would be at the discretion of the authorities. Ranjan’s representation was subsequently rejected by the authorities, who stated that because he had not submitted the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate with his original application, he was not entitled to additional marks.

Ranjan then filed another writ petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 01 October 2010. After a delay of three years, Ranjan filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court condoned the delay, allowed the appeal, and directed the appointing authority to appoint Ranjan as a constable, granting him the additional five marks for his NCC ‘B’ certificate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The original writ petitioner first approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna with CWJC No. 5431 of 2008, arguing that he was wrongly denied five additional marks for his NCC ‘B’ certificate. The learned Single Judge refused to issue a positive direction, noting that there was no evidence that the petitioner had submitted the certificate with his original application. However, the judge left it to the discretion of the authority to consider the certificate if it was submitted after the physical test but before the publication of results.

Subsequently, the petitioner’s representation was rejected, and he filed another writ petition, CWJC No. 7650 of 2009, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner then filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 1631 of 2014. The Division Bench of the High Court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner as a constable with the additional five marks. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the advertisement (No. 1/2004) published on 08 February 2004, by the Bihar Police Force for the selection of constables. The advertisement stipulated that:

• Applicants were required to enclose self-attested copies of all necessary documents along with their application form.
• Original certificates were to be produced before the Selection Council at the time of appointment.
• Additional marks would be awarded for NCC certificates: five marks for NCC ‘B’ and ten marks for NCC ‘C’.

The Supreme Court considered these requirements in the context of the settled legal principle that candidates must comply with all conditions of the advertisement before the cut-off date, unless extended by the recruiting authority.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Bihar):

• The appellants argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
• They contended that as per the advertisement, candidates were required to submit a self-attested copy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate along with the application form. The original certificate was to be produced at the time of appointment before the Selection Council.
• The original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate with his application form. The certificate was produced after the physical test in 2007.
• The cut-off date for submitting the application was 22 February 2004. Since the petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate by this date, he was not entitled to the additional five marks.
• Although the select list dated 08 September 2007 awarded him 17 marks, the appointing authority correctly decided not to grant the additional five marks because the certificate was not submitted with the application form.
• The appellants relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85 and Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58, to support their argument that only documents submitted with the application should be considered.

Arguments by the Respondents (Madhu Kant Ranjan):

• The respondents argued that from the beginning, the original writ petitioner had submitted all relevant certificates, including the NCC ‘B’ certificate, with his application.
• They claimed that this was specifically pleaded in the writ petition, CWJC No. 7650 of 2009.
• The respondents stated that the relevant records were destroyed in a flood.
• The select list dated 08 September 2007, awarded the original writ petitioner 17 marks, which included the five additional marks for the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
• The Division Bench of the High Court correctly directed the authorities to act as per the select list and appoint the original writ petitioner as a constable.
• The respondents also pointed out that the Division Bench of the High Court had denied back wages.

Submissions Table

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 original writ petitioner was entitled to additional five marks for the NCC ‘B’ certificate, given that he did not submit the photocopy of the certificate with his original application form as required by the advertisement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85* and Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58*, to support its conclusion that only documents submitted at the time of application should be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Strict Adherence to Advertisement Terms: The Court emphasized that candidates must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement. This includes submitting all necessary documents along with the application form by the specified cut-off date.
• Importance of Original Application: The Court noted that the original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate with his original application. This was a critical requirement, and the subsequent submission of the certificate after the physical test was not sufficient to claim additional marks.
• Consistency in Pleadings: The Court highlighted that the original writ petitioner’s claim that he had submitted the certificate with his original application was an afterthought and inconsistent with his earlier pleadings in the first writ petition.
• Rejection of Select List: The Court supported the appointing authority’s decision to disagree with the select list, which had incorrectly awarded additional marks. The Court upheld that the authority was justified in not allotting the additional marks as the certificate was not submitted with the original application.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the select list should be followed, emphasizing that the appointing authority was correct in not granting additional marks due to non-compliance with the advertisement’s terms. The Court also rejected the argument that the original writ petitioner had submitted the certificate with the original application, as this was not supported by the facts of the case and inconsistent with the earlier pleadings.

The Court stated, “As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority.”

The Court further stated, “Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered.”

The Court also noted, “Therefore, when the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate.”

Key Takeaways

• Strict Compliance: Candidates must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of recruitment advertisements, including submitting all required documents with the application form.
• Cut-off Dates: Documents submitted after the cut-off date, even if before the publication of results, may not be considered.
• Consistency in Pleadings: Candidates cannot change their stand or improve their case in subsequent litigation if it contradicts their earlier pleadings.
• Authority of Appointing Body: The appointing authority has the right to correct errors in select lists if they are based on non-compliance with the advertisement’s terms.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than to quash the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the order of the learned Single Judge.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that candidates must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of recruitment advertisements, including submitting all required documents with the application form by the specified cut-off date. This judgment reinforces the principle that only documents submitted with the application form should be considered, and that subsequent submissions cannot be used to claim additional benefits. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles regarding strict adherence to the terms of the advertisement in recruitment processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr. underscores the importance of strict compliance with the terms of recruitment advertisements. The Court held that candidates must submit all required documents with their application forms and cannot claim additional benefits for documents submitted later. This decision reinforces the principle that only documents submitted with the application form should be considered, and that subsequent submissions cannot be used to claim additional benefits. The judgment also highlights the need for consistency in pleadings and the authority of the appointing body to correct errors in select lists based on non-compliance with the advertisement’s terms. The Supreme Court has set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the learned Single Judge’s order.