SC Orders JPSC to Allow Missed Medical Exam, Directs Creation of 'Supernumerary Post' for ST Woman Candidate

The Court further ordered that, if she qualifies the medical examination, a supernumerary post be created for her appointment with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in an appeal filed against the Jharkhand High Court’s order dated September 3, 2024.

The High Court had dismissed the intra-court appeal and upheld the rejection of the candidate’s writ petition challenging JPSC’s decision to cancel her candidature.

The appellant had applied for the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2021 (Advertisement No. 01/2021), which was meant to fill posts lying vacant from 2017–2020. She successfully cleared the Preliminary and Mains Examinations and was called for interview and document verification in May 2022.

JPSC issued a press advertisement stating that candidates appearing for the interview would undergo a medical examination the next day at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. The appellant attended her interview on May 15, 2022, but did not appear for the medical examination on May 16, believing it would be scheduled after completion of all interviews on May 17. She later learned, through a newspaper report, that she had missed the test and her candidature was rejected.

Her writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court in April 2024, and the Division Bench also refused relief, holding that the selection process had already concluded.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the High Court erred in relying on the precedent of State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa (2020), which emphasized strict adherence to recruitment instructions.

The Supreme Court noted that in the present case, unlike Hemalathaa, there was no specific penalty clause in the advertisement for missing the medical examination.

The Court underscored that procedure is a handmaiden of justice and should not be used oppressively to perpetuate injustice. Citing Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006), the bench reiterated that curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights unless statutes explicitly mandate consequences.

Crucially, the Court found that the wording of JPSC’s advertisement; “medical examination of the candidates who have participated in interview is fixed for next day”, was ambiguous and could reasonably have caused confusion.

The Court also invoked the principle of indirect discrimination, as recognised in Nitisha v. Union of India (2021), to emphasise that even seemingly neutral policies can disproportionately disadvantage marginalized groups.

The Bench observed that the appellant, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, had already demonstrated her merit by clearing the preliminary, mains, and interview stages, and should not be eliminated solely due to an ambiguous instruction.

The Court stressed that as a model employer, the State must act in a manner consistent with equality principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court directed JPSC to conduct the appellant’s medical examination afresh. If she clears it, she must be appointed by creating a supernumerary post, with continuity of service, seniority, and increments from the date the last selected candidate joined under the 2021 recruitment. However, she will not be entitled to back wages or financial benefits for the intervening period.

Concluding, the bench held, “Even if it is accepted that the appellant was negligent in not being available for medical examination as per the prescribed schedule, she deserves to be dealt with leniently. To uphold the constitutional promise by uplifting individuals belonging to marginalized communities, such procedural hurdles must not be resorted to cause further hardship and injustice.”

The Appeal was accordingly allowed, and the Jharkhand High Court’s order dated September 3, 2024, was set aside.