STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MITHILESH KUMAR

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 19-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 161 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
v. 
MITHILESH KUMAR 
(SLP (C) No. 2631 of 2009) 
AUGUST 19, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Service law - Appointment - Applications invited for 
filling up the posts of Assistant Instructors to impart training 
A 
B 
to disabled students - Subsequent decision to train the 
C 
persons with disabilities by professionally established NGOs/ 
institutions - However, State Public Service Commission 
recommending the name of the successful candidate in the 
interview conducted to the Authority -
Candidate not 
appointed - Writ petition - High Court directing the Authority D 
to appoint the candidate - Interference with - Held: Not called 
for- Norms or Rules as existing on the date when the process 
of selection begins will control such selection and any 
alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing 
process, unless specifically the same were given retrospective 
E 
effect - Person may not acquire an indefeasible right to 
appointment merely on the basis of selection - Claim of the 
candidate to be appointed by Authority was negated by a 
change in policy after the selection process had begun -
Service jurisprudence- Aministrative Law. 
F 
Bihar Public Service Commission advertised the 
posts for appointment of ln~tructors and Assistant 
Instructors to impart training to the persons with 
disabities. The respondent appeared at the interview and 
was declared successful. Meanwhile, the Empowered 
G 
Committee decided to train the students through 
professionally established NGOs/institutions and 
requested not to send any further recommendations. 
161 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A Thereafter, the respondent was selected in the interview 
and the BPSC recommended his name to the said 
authority for appointment but the same was rejected. The 
respondent then filed a writ petition. The High Court 
allowed the petition and directed the authority to appoint 
B the respondent to the said post. The Division Bench of 
the High Court upheld the order. Therefore, the appellant-
State filed the instant Special Leave Petition. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1 It is not correct to say that the Bihar Public 
Service Commission ought not to have recommended the 
name of the respondent for appointment after the 
Assistant Director, Social Welfare, had requested the 
Commission not to recommend any further names in 
D view of the decision taken by the State to have disabled 
persons trained through professionally established 
NGOs/institutions in place of Instructors/Assistant 
Instructors for which advertisements had already been 
issued by the Commission. Both the Single Judge as also 
E the Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the 
change in the norms of rec.ruitment could be applied 
prospectively and could not affect those who had been 
selected for being recommended for appointment after 
following the norms as were in place at the time when the 
F selection process was commenced. The respondent was 
selected for recommendation to be appointed as 
Assistant Instructor in accordance with the existing 
norms. Before he could be appointed or even considered 
for appointment, the norms of recruitment were altered 
G to the prejudice of the respondent. [Para 14] [169-E-H; 
170-A-B] 
1.2 The law with regard to the applicability of the 
Rules which were amended and/or altered during the 
selection process is that the norms or Rules as existing 
H on the date when the process of selection begins will 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MITHILESH KUMAR 
163 
control such selection and any alteration to such norms 
A 
would not affect the continuing process, unless 
specifically the same were given retrospective effect. In 
the instant case, the amendments are introduced to a 
recruitment process after the same has begun. [Para 15] 
~70-C-D] 
B; 
1.3 While a person may not acquire an indefeasible 
right to appointment merely on the basis of selection, in 
the instant case, the claim of the respondent to be 
appointed by the BPSG had been negated by a change 
in policy regarding recruitment after the selection C 
process had begun. In these circumstances, there is no 
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the 
judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court. [Paras 
16 and 17] [170-H; 171-A-B] 
D 
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47; 
Chairman, Al

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