SWEETY KUMARI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 22-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 556 : 2023 INSC 853
556
CASE DETAILS
 SWEETY KUMARI
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6072 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023
[J.K. MAHESHWARI AND K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the rejection of the candidatures of 
the appellants due to non-production of the original certiﬁ cate at the time 
of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) is justiﬁ ed 
and what relief can be granted to the appellants.
Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment), Rules, 
1955 – rr.7(b), 9 – Non-production of original certiﬁ cate at the time of 
interview – Rejection of candidatures – Impermissible: 
Held: The language of the rules makes it clear that the production 
of the original certiﬁ cates at the time of interview was not mandatory but 
directory – This is apparent from the language of second note to r.9 which 
uses the word “may be required to produce the originals before commission 
at the time of viva-voce test” – Further, even going by the advertisement, 
the certiﬁ cates of educational qualiﬁ cation and other required documents 
on the date of the submission of the online application form were to be 
necessarily possessed but their production was not mandatory – The factum 
of eligibility is diﬀ erent from factum of proof thereof – If a person possesses 
eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied beneﬁ t 
because its proof is produced later – In the present case, the proof was 
available and true photocopies were on record – Appellants’ candidature 
could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced 
before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such 
requirement was not mandatory – Further, the case of appellants is at par 
with the case of Aarav Jain and other seven candidates who were appointed 
557
in furtherance of the judgment of this Court dated 23.05.2022 in Aarav Jain 
v. The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4242 
of 2022 wherein this Court had not accepted the plea taken by BPSC that 
production of original certiﬁ cate was mandatory because the candidates 
possessed such certiﬁ cates on the date of submission of the application 
form – No reason to deny similar beneﬁ ts to the two appellants at par with 
Aarav Jain and seven other candidates – Thus, they cannot be discriminated 
by not granting relief merely because of non-availability of vacancies in 
the 30th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination – Further, in SLP 
(Civil) No. 16749/2023, the appellant appeared in 31st Bihar Judicial Service 
Competitive Examination, and secured 501 marks, whereas cut oﬀ  was 499 
in EWS category therefore, the respondents to adjust one vacancy of EWS 
for the same examination or from the next examination and extend similar 
beneﬁ ts to the said appellant, in view of the ratio of Aarav Jain – Impugned 
judgments set aside – Present judgment passed in the peculiar facts of the 
case. [Paras 14, 16-19, 22, 24, 27-29]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Aarav Jain v. The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. Civil 
Appeal No. 4242 of 2022; Charles K. Skaria and Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew 
and Others (1980) 2 SCC 752:[1980] 3 SCR 71 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6072 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2021 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.18038 of 2021.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.6073 and 6074 of 2023.
Appearances:
Radheshyam Sharma, Dibyanshu Pandey, Harish Pandey, Mukesh 
Kumar, Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar, Brijesh Kumar, Ms. Neha 
Rai, Krishna Kumar Singh, Mridul Chakraborty, Tushar Srivastava, 
 SWEETY KUMARI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
Abhijeet Kumar Pandey, Aditya Singh-1, Raman Kr. Singh, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Azmat Hayat Amanullah, T. G. Shahi, Navin Prakash, Gaurav Agrawal, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the instant three appeals, the judgments passed by the High 
Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in 
Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 18038/2021) dated 
03.11.2021; Vikramaditya Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 
3707/2020) dated 04.09.2021; and Aditi v. Bihar Public Service Commission 
Patna and Others. (CWJC No. 15325/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.