Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on October 4, 2024 held that the Bihar government’s 2023 decision to cancel the selection process for 6,379 junior engineer posts, advertised in 2019, was impermissible, citing a four-year delay and changes in rules as insufficient grounds for scrapping the process.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that justice would be best served by directing the State/Commission to prepare a fresh selection list of meritorious candidates for the March 8, 2019, advertisement for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts, noting that no appointments have been made for over a decade.

"As per the most recent status report by the State, nearly 9,187 posts of Junior Engineers remain vacant, drastically affecting the day-to-day functioning of the State. As retirements are ongoing, the working strength is continuously decreasing and is currently at 11.7%," the bench noted.

Citing the case of K Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (2008), the bench emphasized that the Supreme Court had clearly ruled that introducing new requirements after the completion of a selection process equates to "changing the rules of the game after the game was played," which is impermissible.

Highlighting the case’s lengthy history, the bench remarked that despite the preparation of the final select list, which marked the completion of the appointment process, the state government attempted to cancel the entire process and initiate a new appointment procedure under the updated rules.

"In the considered opinion of this court, this amounts to effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous rules," the bench said.

In this case, the bench criticized the high court for abruptly disposing of the writ petitions without providing any reasons or addressing the issues involved. The high court merely recorded the state counsel's statement and allowed the State to amend the rules in question without proper adjudication.

The bench, having noted the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly the prolonged pendency leading to huge number of vacant posts that hinder the Government’s functioning, found it appropriate for the State of Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) to proceed with the fresh select list submitted in compliance with the high court's order of April 19, 2022, which has attained finality, as also taking into consideration as far as possible, the interest of the candidates who were found successful. 

The court directed the preparation of a revised select list, ensuring, where possible, the inclusion of meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were disqualified solely due to the 2017 amendment to the Rules. This amendment had disqualified candidates whose institutes were not recognized by the AICTE, and the court ordered that all similarly placed successful candidates be considered as well.

Court also directed the BTSC to prepare the revised select list within three months. It also ordered the State Government to act upon the revised select list submitted by the Commission within a period of 30 days thereafter.

The court's decision came on civil appeals filed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh and others, who were successful candidates, challenging the validity of the Patna High Court's February 16, 2023 judgment.

A group of unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the high court challenging the vires of Rule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017, prescribing technical qualification eligibility for selection/appointment to the technical post in the State of Bihar.

They were all applicants who possessed a Diploma from Private Universities/Institutions established by statute and approved by the University Grants Commission. Their applications were found ineligible by the BTSC on the grounds that their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE).

They relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University & Anr Vs AICTE & Ors (2001) wherein, on an interpretation of the provisions of the All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987, it was held that Universities are excluded from the purview of technical institutions and are thus not required to obtain approvals from the AICTE before introducing technical courses/programmes.

Their stand was reinforced by the AICTE before the high court, as made explicit by their counter affidavit of May 12, 2022.

The high court, while dealing with several analogous writ petitions, allowed the selection process to be completed but directed that all orders of appointments were subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and therefore, the selected candidates cannot claim any equity.

On April 02, 2022, the BTSC published its selection list and allotted departments to selected candidates.

In separate analogous writ petitions, the high court on April 19, 2022 set aside the final select list and BTSC was directed to prepare a fresh select list granting 40% institutional reservation to diploma holders from any polytechnic institute, recognised by the AICTE and affiliated with the State Board of Technical Institutions, Bihar and located within the State.

Following this, the BTSC proceeded to finalise the merit list but was directed by the high court on December 01, 2022 to withhold the declaration of results until leave is granted by the court. A list was prepared on December 19, 2022, put under sealed cover. The Advocate General informed the court that the State Government was contemplating a review of the entire process.

On January 25, 2023, the Bihar government convened a high-level meeting in which a decision was taken inter alia to cancel the appointment process and to initiate approval for the amended Rules.

Once the decision of January 25, 2023 was brought on record, the high court disposed of all proceedings.

Before the apex court, the appellants contended that the writ petitioners, having knowingly participated in the selection process were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence and therefore, could not have challenged the eligibility criteria post facto. 

They also contended that the cancellation of the entire selection process after its completion and preparation of the final select list, was unjustified and amounted to changing the rules of the game after the declaration of results, which was impermissible. 

The private respondents i.e., the writ petitioners before the high court also contended that the cancellation of the entire selection process, at such a tardy stage would seriously impact their interests. 

The state government contended that the selection process related to the advertisement and the resulting final select list had been conducted with the stipulation that the appointments would be contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing litigation, asserting that, therefore, the appellants could not claim any equity.

On April 24, 2023, the apex court directed the maintenance of status quo which has persisted till date. 

Case Title: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar And Others