THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MADHU KANT RANJAN & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 16-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 506
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
v.
MADHU KANT RANJAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7677 of 2021)
DECEMBER 16, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment – A candidate/applicant has to
comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless
extended by the recruiting authority – Also, only those documents,
which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are
required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be
considered – Therefore, when respondent No.1-original writ
petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the
same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off
date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the
additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per the advertisement, the applicants were
required to submit the photocopies of all the relevant documents/
certificates alongwith the application form and the originals were
required to be produced at the time of their appointment before
the Selection Council. The original writ petitioner did not produce/
submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his
original application. Therefore, in absence of the submission of
the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the application,
he was not allotted five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. However,
he submitted the same in the year 2007 after the physical test.
Therefore, he filed a writ petition making a grievance that as he
had produced/submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate, he had been
denied five additional marks. The Single Judge of the High Court
refused to issue any positive direction by observing that there is
no pleading in the writ petition in support of his claim that he had
annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application
506
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
form. The Single Judge also observed that from the pleadings it
appears that he submitted the same after the physical test on
15.01.2007, i.e., before the results were published on 26.12.2007.
However, when subsequently the instant writ petition was filed,
the original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he
had produced all the necessary documents including the NCC
‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application. This is nothing
but an afterthought. Having failed to get any positive direction in
the earlier writ petition on the ground that there is no pleading
that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original
application, he is not entitled to any positive direction and the
original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to improve his case
in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in the earlier
round of litigation. [Paras 6, 7][511-D-H; 513-B-D]
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors.,
(2011) 12 SCC 85 : [2011] 11 SCR 635; Rakesh Kumar
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2013) 11
SCC 58 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 11 SCR 635
referred to 
Para 3
(2013) 11 SCC 58
referred to
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7677
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.1631 of 2014.
Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Akshay
C. Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 20.02.2015passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.1631 of 2014
in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7650 of 2009 by which, after condoning
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MADHU KANT RANJAN &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
the delay of 3 years and 55 days in preferring the appeal, the Division
Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed
and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge
and has directed the D.I.G., Munger to take into account the select list
forwarded to him on 08.09.2007, which included the name of the
respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “original
writpetitioner”) and take necessary steps for his appointment as
Con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.