LexASHOK KUMAR & ANR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 815 ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS (Civil Appeal No. 9092 of2012) . OCTOBER 21, 2016 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Service Law: Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001 - rr.5,6, 7, 10 - Promotion through selection - Selection Criteria - Eighty five marks a/located for written examination and fifteen for interview - Select list not approved - Fresh selection process with a/location of marks for written exam and interview in the ratio of 90:10 - Appellants participated in the fresh process of selection but were unsuccessful and subsequently, they challenged the selection process - Propriety - Held : Appellants appeared in an examination without any objection to process of selection - They cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the selection process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because result is not palatable - Principle of estoppel would operate - Constitution of India - Art. 309 - Principle of estoppel. Applications were invited for promotion to Class III posts from amongst Class IV employees of the Civil Court. Eighty five marks were fixed for the written examination and fifteen for the interview. Appointment committee submitted list of selected candidates to High Court. High Court declined to approve the select list and issued a communication requiring holding of fresh written examination carrying ninety marks and interview often marks. Appellants participated in the fresh process of selection but were unsuccessful and subsequently, they challenged the selection process. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The 815 A B c D E F G H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R. A principle of estoppel would operate. In the present case, the fact that the appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process took place that written examination would carry ninety marks and the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations B weigh in balance. There was an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90:10 C allocation. [Paras 11, 13][822-H; 823-A; 825-E-G] D E F G H 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, it was directed that in the event that there is any existing vacancy, appellant may be allowed to work on Class III post in which he is currently working on the provisional basis until the next round of selection process takes place. The appellant would be at liberty to participate in the selection process that may be held in future and in the event he is declared successful, he would be at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for consideration of the period spent by him on the Class III post for the purpose of fixation of seniority. [Para 16][826-C- E] Raj Kumar v. Shakti R,a} (1997) 9 SCC 527- distinguished. Marripati Nagaraja v. The Govern111ent of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 522 : 2007 (11) SCR 506; Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 3 PLJR (SC) 271; A111lan Jyoti Borrooah v State of Assa111 (2009) 3 SCC 227 : 2009 (1) SCR 593; Chandra Prakash Trwari v Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 (3) SCR 948; Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 : 2007 (10) SCR 41; Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 (2) SCR 812; Rasl1111i Mishra li MP. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 sec 724 : 2006 (7) Suppl. scR 708; Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150: 2010 (12) SCR 944; Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309 : 2013 (5) SCR 687; Chandiga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.