BARUN KUMAR & ORS versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 25-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
BARUN KUMAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5812 of 2022)
AUGUST 25, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR. JJ.]
Service Law – Jharkhand Combined Civil Services
Examination – Validity of appointments – Interpretation of r.16 and
r.17 of Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior
Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 – High Court cancelled
the appointment of appellants who had qualified the 6th combined
Civil Service Examination, 2016 – Appellants-candidates in appeal
before Supreme Court – Held: While reading clause (a) and (b) of
r.16 conjointly, it states that clause (a) is general and precise for
the candidates who are participating in the written examination
whereas clause (b) refers to the candidates who belong to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes leaving the discretion of the
Commission to fix qualifying marks for them but with restriction
that shall not be higher than 35% - R.16 proviso relates to the stage
for determining the suitability of the candidate, total marks obtained
in the written examination has to be counted and not the marks
obtained in any particular subject for preparing the list of candidates
who qualify the written examination and this can be made further
clear by taking note of r.17 – Clause 12(a) of advertisement in
reference to the Preliminary Examination states that fifteen times
candidates will be shortlisted for main examination and as per clause
12(b), the main examination will comprise of 06 papers, total marks
of which would be 1050 and it would be mandatory for the candidate
to appear in all the subjects/papers of Main Examination – However,
for Paper-I, minimum 30 marks as qualifying marks has been
prescribed and all the 6 papers are common and candidate has to
appear in all the papers with the minimum qualifying marks for the
respective category as per clause13 of the advertisement but whether
it is the total marks obtained at the written examination or qualifying
marks obtained in all the papers separately is not clear under the
terms of advertisement – Reading clauses 12 and 13 of advertisement
with r.16 of indicates ambiguity in advertisement – Both the
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 16
16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
Commission and High Court have different views which are equally
possible views and either of the one could not be ruled out or
outrightly negated – When one possible view has been acted upon
by the Commission and candidates have been appointed and are
working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this
Court to now permit the Government to take a U-Turn – Hence, the
appointments of the candidates could not be cancelled.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Reading clause (a) and (b) of Rule 16 conjointly,
states that clause (a) is general and precise for the candidates
who are participating in the written examination whereas clause
(b) refers to the candidates who belong to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes leaving the discretion of the Commission to fix
qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but with
restriction that shall not be higher than 35% in Bihar Civil
Services (Executive Branch). [Para 37][33-G-H; 34-A]
2. The proviso added thereto relates to the stage for
determining the suitability of the candidate, total marks obtained
in the written examination has to be counted and not the marks
obtained in any particular subject for preparing the list of
candidates who qualify the written examination and this can be
made further clear by taking note of Rule 17 of the Rules which
casts an obligation upon the Commission to collate the marks
obtained by the candidate in the written examination and the
Commission shall arrange for vivavoce the candidates who have
qualified the written examination according to Rule 16(a) or 16(b),
as the case may be, and at this stage the Commission keeps a
discretion and in exceptional circumstances may admit a member
from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce
test, even if they have failed to qualify the minimum qualifying
marks with the prior approval of the Government and this being
the scheme of Rules, proviso to Rule 16 has to be read for both
the clause (a) and (b) to Rule 16 and cannot be read in reference
to clause (b) alone as held by the High Court under the impugned
judgment. [Para 38][34-A-D]
3. If we examine clause 12(a) in reference to the preliminary
examination, it may indicate that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.