In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate who participated in the 29th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination. The petitioner contested the validity of the minimum qualifying marks set for the interview stage and alleged discrepancies in the application of standards for different categories of candidates. The petitioner, who had successfully cleared the Preliminary Test and the subsequent written test, fell short of the required minimum marks in the interview, leading to his exclusion from the final selection. The prescribed minimum for the interview was 35 percent, and the petitioner secured only 28 marks out of 100.
The petitioner argued that the imposition of minimum marks for the interview, introduced through the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2014, was ultra vires and unconstitutional. He contended that the rule-making process did not adhere to the mandate outlined in Section 26 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, as there was no prior publication of the proposed rules.
Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about the absence of a reduced standard for candidates from the Scheduled Caste category during the interview, a privilege he claimed was granted in the Preliminary and Main tests. However, the High Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments. It noted that the petitioner had participated in the examination and interview without objection and only challenged the rules after being declared unsuccessful. The court deemed this a belated objection, highlighting that the petitioner failed to contest the rules at the outset. The court also dismissed the petitioner’s claim regarding questions asked about his age during the interview, deeming it an afterthought that should have been raised immediately after the interview. Addressing the petitioner’s challenge under the General Clauses Act, the court ruled that the provision applied only when expressly provided in the enactment granting rule-making powers.
In concluding the judgment, the court emphasized that the appointing authority has the discretion to set the standard for candidate selection. Considering the amendment to the rules establishing the minimum interview marks and the absence of any provision for relaxation, the court found no grounds for interference in the selection process. The judgment drew support from precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court upholding the prescription of minimum marks for interviews in similar cases. Consequently, the court rejected the writ petition, finding no compelling reason to intervene in the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
CASE NAME: Sanjay Gandhi, son of Sri Sheo Dutt Ram, resident of Village – Dhanaura,
P.O. – Naraw, P.S. – Autar Nagar, District – Saran (Chapra).
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, the General
Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
NAME: NIDHI SHYAM SINGH, BBA.LLB (H), COLLEGE: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments