Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Registered Sale Deed Alone Does Not Dismantle Prior Security Interest: Gauhati High Court Rejects Buyer’s Writ Against SARFAESI Action, Cites Expanded Statutory Definition Old OBC Certificates Won’t Work — Supreme Court Says Cut-Off Date Is Final in Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams Power of Attorney Is Not a Licence to Defraud: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Reversal of Sham Sale Deeds by GPA Holder Acting Against NRI Principal’s Interests Not Every Advocate Commissioner Appointment Is Evidence Gathering: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Discretion in Title Dispute No Invalidation Can Be Attached to One-Year LLM for Public Appointments: Madras High Court Orders Retrospective Appointment of Top-Ranked Candidate Section 63 of the Copyright Act | Publisher Can't Be Prosecuted for Author’s Plagiarism Without Proof of Knowledge: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Mathrubhumi Directors Old Marital Disputes Aren’t Enough to Prove Suicide Was Instigated: Supreme Court Acquits Man Jailed for Wife’s Death by Fire Dependent Heir Can Remain in Tenanted Premises Only for Five Years from Tenant’s Death Under WB Tenancy Act: Supreme Court Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in Employment Contract Binding Even in Termination Disputes: Supreme Court Entrustment Was to Run the Business, Not Occupy the Premises: Supreme Court Denies Deemed Tenancy Under Bombay Rent Act Preliminary Enquiry in Corruption Cases Is Desirable, Not Mandatory: Supreme Court Set Aside Quashing of FIR

Recruitment Cannot Be Cancelled After Completion Without Specific Allegations of Fraud — Patna High Court Quashes Cancellation of Bihar Police SI & Sergeant Recruitment

03 April 2025 2:52 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


❝ Legitimate Expectation of Candidates Cannot Be Defeated by Vague Allegations of Irregularities ❞ — Patna High Court delivered a vital judgment protecting the sanctity of public recruitment processes. A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar quashed the cancellation of the recruitment process for Police Sub-Inspectors and Sergeants conducted through Advertisement No. 01/2019 by the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Services Commission. The Court held that “the petitioners who have qualified through all stages have a legitimate expectation that the selection shall culminate into appointments unless vitiated by specific illegality.”

The Court further observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is deeply embedded in our jurisprudence and applies fully to selection processes. The Court noted with disapproval that the Government had acted without producing any reliable material to prove large-scale irregularities or malpractice, while hundreds of deserving candidates had legitimately cleared all stages of the selection.

❝ Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed After the Game Has Begun ❞ — Cancellation Order Declared Illegal

The controversy arose when the State of Bihar, through a Government Resolution dated 22nd February 2022, abruptly cancelled the entire selection process after the successful candidates had already crossed all hurdles — prelims, mains, physical efficiency test, and interview. The results were duly published, but appointments were withheld citing alleged irregularities.

The petitioners contended that the recruitment was conducted strictly as per the notification, and the State’s decision amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had already concluded. The Court agreed, stating, “It is well-settled that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun.” Relying upon the authoritative precedent of Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, the Court held that such unilateral cancellation was legally unsustainable.

❝ Absence of Proof of Widespread Fraud or Malpractice Makes Cancellation Unjustified ❞

The Bench observed that neither the Government nor the BPSSC produced any substantial evidence of malpractice. The Court pointed out that mere administrative suspicion or generalized allegations could not form the basis of annulling an entire recruitment process, especially after the completion of all stages.

The Court remarked, “Neither in the affidavit filed by the State nor in the counter-affidavit of the Commission is there any mention of widespread fraud or malpractice having vitiated the entire process.” The judgment emphasized that recruitment could only be cancelled if credible evidence showed that the integrity of the selection was compromised.

❝ Public Interest is Not a Cloak for Arbitrary Action ❞ — Court Warns Against Mechanical Invocation of Public Interest

The State tried to justify the cancellation by invoking public interest, claiming that some irregularities had surfaced. The Court rejected this contention, holding that “public interest cannot be a mantra for justifying cancellation when the selection is otherwise legally sustainable and no adverse findings are recorded against the petitioners.”

The Bench reminded the State that public employment touches upon Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and cannot be subjected to administrative whims. The State’s failure to indicate even a single proven instance of fraud or manipulation made the cancellation arbitrary.

❝ Candidates Who Cross All Stages of Selection Have a Legitimate Expectation of Appointment ❞

Applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court held that the candidates who successfully passed every stage of the selection, including the final interview, had a right to expect that their appointments would follow unless specific illegality was demonstrated. The Court observed, “We are unable to approve such an approach which militates against the doctrine of legitimate expectation and principles of natural justice.”

The Court strongly criticized the Government’s failure to adhere to the basic principles of fairness and transparency in public employment.

Concluding the judgment, the Court quashed the Government Resolution dated 22.02.2022, restoring the recruitment process. The Court directed the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Services Commission to act upon the final selection list and ordered the State to issue appointment letters within two months.

The Bench made it clear that “we find the impugned Resolution to be unsustainable and arbitrary,” thereby granting relief to hundreds of candidates who had been waiting for justice since 2019.

Date of Decision:   25th March 2025
 

Similar News