NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 11-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 227 of 2019)
JUNE 11, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, M. R. SHAH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Advertisement issued in 2004
for appointment to 1510 posts of Sub-Inspector in the State of Bihar
– Several rounds of litigation – Result of select list of 1510+639
(vacancies added later) i.e. 2149 was declared and the appointments
were made – High Court in a writ petition issued further direction
to appoint 67 candidates belonging to most backward category who
were wrongly left out – State appointed those 67 and to retain those
who were to be displaced decided to appoint 186 more candidates
– Appointment of 186 candidates challenged in High Court – Matter
ultimately came to Supreme Court – 186 candidates were subjected
only to medical fitness test in the process of appointment since they
had already cleared the physical efficiency test in 2006 – Further,
133 candidates who had also cleared the physical efficiency test in
2006, were classified into a specific category and placed along
with 186 candidates by Supreme Court and appointed under its
orders by subjecting them only to medical test and not physical test
– Writ petitioners herein claimed appointment in pursuance of
advertisement dtd.28.06.11 for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police
– Petitioners sought parity with the aforesaid 133 candidates
claiming they were all part of list of 223 original candidates
permitted to participate in selection against 299 posts by order of
Supreme Court – Held: It was made very clear that the order of this
Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates was
passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction
u/Art.142 and the same shall not be treated as a precedent – Thus,
no benefit can be claimed of the said order by writ petitioners
especially when otherwise they are not able to satisfy this Court
that when they have either not undertaken the physical test or have
failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 656
656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage – Petitioners not entitled for
the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions.
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court made it very clear that order of this
Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates are
passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated
as a Precedent. The petitioners are claiming that they should be
extended the same benefit of not being subjected to physical test
as the exemption was granted with regard to 133 candidates.
There is more than one reason for not accepting the claim of the
petitioner. Firstly, there has been specific order with regard to
133 candidates for not subjecting them to the physical test and
directing their appointment without physical test which this Court
had categorically held to be not treated as Precedent. The order
when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent, no
benefit can be claimed of the said order by the writ petitioner in
the present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ
petitioners are not able to satisfy this Court that when they have
either not undertaken the physical test or failed in the physical
test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of
Police at this stage. [Paras 16, 17][666-G-H; 667-A-C]
1.2 The Counter affidavit filed by the Commission
categorically states that for selection against 299 posts, 2192
candidates turned up for selection and only 232 cleared the
physical test. The order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court passed in
C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017 has also noticed the number of the
candidates who were to subjected to the process of selection for
299 posts which number was mentioned 2479 candidates. From
the order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court, it is further clear that
1035 candidates did not turned up for selection, this Court directed
for them also to be subjected to physical test, thus, there are
large number of candidates who did not take physical test or took
the physical test and failed. Directing for appointment of all those
candidates which includes the petitioners also who did not take
the physical test or took the physical test and failed shall be an
unending process and there are more than thousand of such
candidates 

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