Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court in February 2021 dealt with a case arising from the Bihar Public Service Commission’s (BPSC) decision to modify a merit list for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
The petitioner was initially shown as the last selected candidate in the merit list published on 25 May 2019. However, later the BPSC issued a revised result on 21 August 2019, which replaced the petitioner with another candidate (respondent no. 8), who had scored higher marks.
The petitioner argued that:
- Once the result was published and recommendation sent, BPSC had become functus officio (i.e., its role ended), so it could not revise the result.
- He was not given a chance of hearing before his name was removed from the select list.
The Court, however, rejected these arguments. It reasoned as follows:
- Rectifying mistakes is part of BPSC’s duty: If an error was committed, BPSC was competent to correct it, as justice must be ensured to all candidates.
- Principles of natural justice are not rigid: While fairness is necessary, the Court noted that hearing the petitioner would not change his merit position, since the substituted candidate (respondent no. 8) had undeniably secured higher marks.
- No prejudice caused: Even if the petitioner was heard, he could not improve his position against a more meritorious candidate. Applying the “useless formality theory” discussed by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 487, the Court held that strict adherence to natural justice was not needed in such a situation.
- Equitable consideration: The Court, however, directed that if any vacancy was still available, BPSC could consider accommodating the petitioner without disturbing the rightful selection of respondent no. 8.
Thus, the writ petition was disposed of, and the revised merit list was upheld.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For BPSC and other commissions: The ruling clarifies that they can correct mistakes in merit lists even after publication, provided corrections are to uphold merit and fairness.
- For candidates: It reinforces the principle that merit takes precedence. Even if initially selected, a candidate cannot claim a position over someone with higher marks.
- For recruitment processes: The judgment balances procedural fairness with practical justice—natural justice principles should not become an “empty ritual” when outcome cannot change.
- Equity in practice: By suggesting accommodation if vacancies exist, the Court recognized the petitioner’s grievance but refused to displace the more meritorious candidate.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether BPSC can modify a published result after recommendation?
- Decision: Yes. BPSC can correct its mistake to ensure justice to all candidates.
- Reasoning: Rectification is part of fair selection; denying it would perpetuate injustice.
- Was removal of the petitioner from the merit list without hearing a violation of natural justice?
- Decision: No.
- Reasoning: Hearing the petitioner would not improve his merit position, as respondent no. 8 had higher marks. The Court applied the “useless formality theory.”
- Could equity provide any relief to the petitioner?
- Decision: Yes, but limited. If additional vacancies exist, BPSC may consider accommodating him, without disturbing the rightful selection of respondent no. 8.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 487 – on the “useless formality theory” in natural justice.
Case Title
Kumar Devesh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 18486 of 2019
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 849
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Subash Chandra Mishra (SC-16), Advocate; Mr. AC to SC-16
- For BPSC: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTg0ODYjMjAxOSMxI04=-CVgo1j3lg30=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
