16 July 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent judicial decision in the case of Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Another vs Himal Kumari & Others, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed principles of fairness and adherence to statutory rules in the context of public appointments. The case centred around the selection process for City Managers under the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, governed by the Urban Development and Housing Department of Bihar.

Background:

The controversy arose when Respondent No. 1 challenged the Bihar State Commission's decision not to consider her for appointment as a City Manager. The dispute hinged on the interpretation of minimum qualifying marks as stipulated in the advertisement and the applicable rules.

Legal Framework:

Under the Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014, the selection process was clearly delineated, with specific provisions for the allocation of marks in the written examination and for experience (in the case of contract-based appointees). The advertisement, issued by the commission, set out minimum qualifying marks separately for different categories such as General, Backward Class, Most Backward Class, SC/ST, and Female candidates.

Court Proceedings:

Initially, Respondent No. 1 contested the commission's decision based on her performance in the written examination. While she did not meet the total minimum qualifying marks as interpreted by the commission, she argued that she had met the qualifying marks requirement specifically for the written test component, which was set at 32% of 70 marks.

The Single Judge, after reviewing the advertisement and the rules, ruled in favor of Respondent No. 1, directing that she be considered for appointment based on her performance in the written test alone. The commission, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision, rejecting the commission's argument that an executive order from 2007, setting uniform minimum qualifying marks for various competitive examinations, should apply in this case. The Bench emphasized that the executive order did not override the specific provisions laid down in the 2014 Rules and the advertisement for the City Manager appointments.

Conclusion:

The commission further appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the Division Bench's decision. After careful consideration of the rules, advertisement, and legal arguments presented, the Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's decision. The Court held that the minimum qualifying marks, as per the advertisement and the 2014 Rules, were applicable only to the written test component (out of 70 marks), not to the total marks (out of 100), as contended by the commission. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering strictly to the criteria laid down in advertisements and statutory rules governing public recruitment processes. It emphasized that while executive orders can provide guidelines, they cannot supersede or alter specific rules and criteria set forth in statutory regulations.