Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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