Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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
 

Latest Legal News