STATE OF BIHAR versus KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 10-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 10, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
S e1vice Law : 
Recn1it111e11t-Class III posts-Bihar State Selection Service Board-No 
medt list prepared-Selection made 011 the basis of educational qualifications 
required for the job and in some cases the pay scales available at that 
time-Held : Recommendations in respect of allotment and appointment of 
selected candidates per se illegal-Not mandatory for the Govemmcllt to 
accept options of candidates and make appoi111me11t to the post-Asking for 
option is discretionmy and Govemment not bound to select candidates 011 
A 
B 
c 
that basis--11ie direction would apply only to those cases where ap-
D 
pointments have not become final. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.86 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J.C. No. 686 of 1984. 
Akhilesh Pandey for R.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
T.C. Ray and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
Ms. Abha Jain (NP) A Sharan for Impleading party. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Impleadment application is dismissed. 
E 
F 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of a learned G 
single Judge of the Patna High Court, made on February 17, 1986. 
A few admitted facts are sufficient for disposal of this appeal. 
Recruitment to the Class III posts in several categories in the State of Bihar 
was advertised by the Bihar State Selection Service Board, Large number 
of candidates applied for selection. There were 1005 posts in all; initially, H 
837 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A 978 and subsequently 127 posts were included. For 7 categories of posts, 
special educational qualification of graduation with Commerce, Science, 
Economics and Mathematics has been prescribed. For 3 categories of 
posts, only general educational qualifications have been prescribed. All are 
required to have graduation degree as a minimum educational qualifica-
B 
c 
tion. Before selection of the candidates, the pay structure of some of the 
posts underwent drastical change. Some of the posts carrying higher pay 
scale, prior to the advertisement, were of a lower grade with lesser scale 
of pay while some of the posts due to Pay Commission recommendations 
were increased. Be that as it may, when the selection was made and 
appointments were sought to be made of the selected candidates, as per 
the affidavit filed in this regard, on a direction given on iuly 30, 1987, the 
Government claimed that "the Board considered candidates for various 
posts as per availability at the time and recommended candidates strictly 
on the basis of pay scale and academic qualifications of job requirements." 
The High Court proceeded on the premise that no merit lists was prepared 
D and the candidates who had aptitude for certain job or entitlement are 
required to be considered for appointment. Options had not been called 
for. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the candidates without 
preparing merit list dnd without calling for the option is arbitrary, violating 
Article 14 of the Constitution. 
E 
The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High 
Court is correct in law? When we asked the learned counsel for the 
appellant to place before us the merit list to substantiate the stand taken 
in the affidavit tiled in that behalf, the learned counsel was unable to place 
before us the merit list except the publication in the newspaper that 
F 
candidates were s~kcted on the basis of the merit. In view of the finding 
recorded by the High Court that no merit list was prepared and in spite 
of the opportunity having been given, the Government failed to substantiate 
that the merit list was in fact prepared, we find it difficult to accept the 
awrments made in the affidavit. Under these circumstances, we proceed 
on the premise that the merit list has not been prepared and the selection 
G came to be made on the basis of educational qualifications required for 
the job and in some Departments on the basis of pay scales available at 
that time. In this scenario, the question arises : whether appointment of the 
candidates is valid in law? When the Service Commission or the Board 
selects the candidates, the normal criteria required preparation of a list of 
H the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recommend to 
... 
.:: 
STATE v. KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH 
839 
the Govern

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