Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Minimum Qualifying Marks Apply Only to Written Exam: Supreme Court Clarifies Recruitment Criteria for Bihar City Managers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

Patna High Court’s ruling on interpreting Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014, upheld by Supreme Court.

 

 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed the Patna High Court’s interpretation regarding the recruitment process for the post of City Manager in Bihar, as governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The judgment, delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, emphasized that the minimum qualifying marks pertain solely to the written examination, thereby upholding the eligibility of candidates based on their written test scores alone.

 

 

The case originated from a recruitment process initiated by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for 152 posts of City Managers under an advertisement dated November 15, 2016. The advertisement detailed the criteria for eligibility, including a written examination and experience marks for candidates already working as City Managers on a contract basis. Respondent Himal Kumari, who had no prior work experience, secured 22.575 marks out of 70 in the written examination but was declared unsuccessful for not meeting the overall qualifying mark threshold of 32%. Kumari argued that her marks translated to 32.14% of the written test score, which met the minimum qualifying criteria stipulated in the advertisement.

 

 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that the minimum qualifying marks of 32% applied solely to the written test scores. “A conjoint reading of Rules 5 and 11 of the Rules, 2014, with the advertisement, indicates that achieving 32% in the written examination qualifies a candidate to be placed in the consideration zone,” the bench clarified.

 

 

The Court further explained that while the written examination determined initial eligibility, the final merit list would also consider experience marks. Therefore, a candidate with no experience but qualifying written test scores remains eligible, albeit likely lower on the merit list compared to experienced candidates. “A candidate scoring 22.5 out of 70 in the written test with no experience remains eligible provided the merit list extends that low,” the bench state

The Court found the appellants’ reliance on an Executive Order from 2007, which prescribed qualifying marks across various categories, to be misplaced. It held that the Rules, 2014, which postdate the Executive Order, did not incorporate these qualifying marks into the final merit list calculations. “The 2014 Rules govern the recruitment process and should be given primacy over earlier executive decisions,” the judgment asserted.

Justice Vikram Nath emphasized, “The required minimum qualifying marks are concerned with marks obtained in the written test only, as is evident from the Rules, 2014, and the advertisement, and it has no relevance to the final preparation of the merit list.”

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the High Court’s interpretation, emphasizing the autonomy of the 2014 Rules over prior executive orders. This ruling clarifies the recruitment process, ensuring that candidates meeting the minimum written test criteria are duly considered. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific recruitment rules and is expected to streamline similar future recruitments under the Bihar City Manager Cadre.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2024

Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs. Himal Kumari & Anr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News