STATE OF BIHAR versus KUMAR PROMOD NARAIN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 10-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
KUMAR PROMOD NARAIN SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 10, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Recmitment-Oass III posts-Bi/Jar State Selection Se1vice Board-No 
C me1it list prepared-Selection made 011 the basis of educational qualifications 
required for the job and in some cases the payscales available at that 
time-Held : Recommendations in respect of allotment and appointment of 
selected candidates per se illegal-Not mandato1y for the Govemment to 
accept options of candidates and make appointment to the pop-Asking for 
D 
E 
F 
G 
option is discretionmy and Govemment not bound to select candidates on 
that basis-The direction would apply only to those cases where appointments 
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. 3408 of 1984. 
Akhilesh Pandey for (R.P. Singh) for the Appellant. 
T.C. Ray and Dcba Prasad Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
Ms. Abha Jain, (NP), A. Sharan for the lmpleading party. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
I mpleadnrnnt application is dismissed. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of a learned 
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 
H was advertised by the Bihar State Selection Service Board. Large number 
834 
STATE v. PROMOD NARAIN SINGH 
835 
of candidates applied for selection. There were 1005 posts in all; initially, 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 categ0ries of 
posts, only general educational qualifications have been prescribed. All are 
required to have graduation degree as a minimum educational qualifica-
B 
tion. Before selection of the candidates, the pay structure of some of the 
posts underwent drastic change. Some of the posts carrying higher pay 
scale, prior to the advertisement, were lower grades 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 appoint-
ments were sought to be made of the selected candidates, as per the 
affidavit filed in this regard, on a direction given on July 30, 1987, the 
Government claimed that "the Board considered candidates for various 
posts as per availability at the time and recommended candidates strictly 
c 
on the basis of pay scale, academic qualifications of job requirements." The 
High Court proceeded on the premise that no merit list was prepared and D 
the candidates who had aptitude for certain job or entitlement are required 
to be considered for appointment. Options had not been called for. There-
fore, the selection and appointment of the candidates without preparing 
merit list and without calling for the option is arbitrary, violating Article 
14 of the Constitution. 
The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High 
Court is correct in law? When asked the learned counsel for the appellant 
to place before us the merit list to substantiate the stand taken in the 
affidavit filed in that behalf, the learned counsel is unable to place before 
E 
us the merit list except the publication in the newspaper that candidates 
F 
were selected 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 fin.d it difficult tu accept the 
averments 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 of is to prepare of the H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recom-
mends to the Government for

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