Introduction

The case of Ratnakar Dubey And Others Petitioner/S v. State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary And Others /S. adjudicated by the Patna High Court on May 5, 2021, revolves around the stringent adherence to the procedural norms set forth in the Bihar Public Service Commission's (BPSC) Advertisement No. 6 of 2018. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their candidature in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, alleging arbitrary treatment and discrimination. This comprehensive analysis delves into the background, key issues, court's reasoning, and the broader implications of the judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioners contested the BPSC's decision to annul their candidature for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination. The cancellation was premised on the petitioners' inability to produce original documents during their interviews, despite their commendable performance in preliminary and main examinations. The High Court, presided over by Justice Partha Sarthy, examined the adherence of the commission to its own advertisement terms and previous judicial precedents. Conclusively, the court upheld the commission's decision, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with advertisement stipulations and rejecting claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively cited several landmark judgments to underpin its decision:

• Director of Settlements AP v. M.R. Appa Roy [(2002) 4 SCC 638] - Emphasizing the necessity of possessing a legal right when seeking mandamus.
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan [(2011) 12 SCC 85] - Highlighting the imperative of adhering strictly to selection procedures without arbitrary relaxations.
• State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati [(2019) 19 SCC 626] - Supporting the notion that non-compliance with advertisement terms does not warrant discrimination.
• Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Sushil V. Patkar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 432] - Affirming the power of commissions to reject candidates based on non-compliance.
• General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (Supra) - Clarifying that certain ratios from previous cases are not applicable in present scenarios.
• Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] - Reinforcing that Article 14 does not cater to negative equality or perpetuate past irregularities.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed the terms of Advertisement No. 6 of 2018, underscoring that the requirement to produce original documents was explicitly stated. The petitioners had acknowledged their failure to comply with these terms, rendering their claims of discrimination baseless. The High Court drew parallels with the Aarav Jain v. The Bihar Public Service Commission case, where similar grounds led to the dismissal of the petition. The rationale was clear: non-compliance with stipulated advertisement terms negates the claim of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.

Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioners' reliance on other cases, elucidating why those precedents were inapplicable in the present context. The emphasis was on the clear-cut terms of the advertisement and the lack of ambiguity, thereby negating any grounds for favoritism or unequal treatment.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the sanctity of procedural adherence in competitive examinations, especially those conducted by public service commissions. It underscores that:

• Candidates must meticulously follow the application and selection procedures as advertised.
• Public service commissions retain the authority to enforce compliance with their own rules without external interference.
• Claims of discrimination or arbitrariness require substantial evidence, particularly when procedural terms are unambiguous.
• Future litigations concerning candidature cancellations must demonstrate a breach or ambiguity in established procedures to succeed.

Consequently, aspirants are cautioned to uphold every stipulated requirement during the application and selection processes to avoid jeopardizing their candidatures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Certiorari

A judicial remedy used to quash the order or decision of a lower court or tribunal when it is found to exceed its jurisdiction or act contrary to the law.

Writ of Mandamus

A court order compelling a government official, public body, or lower court to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to complete.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Provisional Candidature

A status where a candidate is temporarily considered eligible pending further verification or fulfillment of specific conditions.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court's judgment in Ratnakar Dubey And Others Petitioner/S v. State Of Bihar serves as a pivotal reference for the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in competitive examinations. By upholding the BPSC's decision to cancel candidatures based on non-compliance with documentation requirements, the court reinforced the principle that established rules and advertisements must be strictly followed to maintain fairness and integrity in the selection process. This decision not only clarifies the extent of a commission's authority in enforcing procedural norms but also sets a precedent that discourages arbitrary or discriminatory practices, thereby safeguarding the meritocratic essence of public service examinations.