Case Background
These writ petitions arose from a recruitment process initiated by the East Central Railway under Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016.
The notice was for recruitment to 246 posts of Constable (Band) in the Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force. The vacancies were notified instrument-wise, and the eligibility criteria required, among other things, a minimum of two years’ experience on the specified musical instrument.
Both petitioners applied pursuant to this Employment Notice, claiming that they fulfilled all the required conditions including the experience requirement.
They appeared in the written examination conducted by the Railways and qualified. After that they participated in the physical efficiency test and physical measurement test, and cleared both stages.
Subsequently, they were called for and passed the trade test. The results of these stages, according to the petitioners, showed that they had secured good positions in the merit list and were called for document verification.
During document verification, the petitioners submitted their certificates, including experience certificates from private band groups or training units, to prove their required two-year experience in playing musical instruments.
However, when the final select list was published, the petitioners’ names were missing. They claimed that despite clearing all stages and having the required experience, they were not appointed.
Feeling aggrieved, they approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 206 of 2021 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6 of 2021, seeking a direction to consider their claim for appointment on the post of Constable (Band) under Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016.
During pendency of CWJC No. 206 of 2021, the respondents issued order dated 11.11.2020, signed by the DIG, Recruitment and Training, Railway Board, New Delhi, formally rejecting that petitioner’s candidacy. This rejection order was also challenged by way of an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 01 of 2023).
The petitioners further alleged discrimination by pointing out that another candidate, one Lakhan Jatav, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, had been appointed despite, according to them, similar defects in his experience certificate.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, heard both matters together, as the facts and reliefs claimed were similar.
The petitioners’ main contention was that they had successfully passed all stages of selection and that their experience certificates clearly established more than two years’ experience on the relevant musical instruments.
They argued that Clause-D of the eligibility criteria in Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 required not less than two years’ experience in the specified musical instrument. Their certificates, according to them, fulfilled this condition.
In CWJC No. 206 of 2021, the petitioner claimed he had a three-year experience certificate, including a certificate from Anand Bras Band, Bina, Sagar (Madhya Pradesh), showing experience from 1st January 2015 to 1st January 2016, placed along with other certificates.
In CWJC No. 6 of 2021, the petitioner claimed to have two experience certificates, one of which was issued by Sri Krishna Bras Band, showing about three years’ experience from February 2013 to January 2016.
The petitioners asserted that their cases were rejected solely on the ground that the experience certificates did not bear dates of issuance. They claimed this ground was arbitrary, especially because the appointment of one Lakhan Jatav had been accepted even though, according to them, his experience certificate also did not mention any date.
On this basis, they pleaded discrimination and sought parity with the said candidate, who was impleaded as respondent no. 5 in CWJC No. 206 of 2021.
The Union of India, represented by counsel, opposed the writ petitions. The Court recorded their defence in some detail.
For the petitioner in CWJC No. 206 of 2021, the respondents submitted that at the time of submitting his application form, he had produced an experience certificate from Vishal Bras, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. This certificate did not mention the date of issuance, but showed two years’ experience.
However, at the time of document verification, the same petitioner produced a different experience certificate from Anand Bras Band, Bina, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, showing only one year of experience. Additionally, another certificate of Vishal Bras, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, produced at that stage, was found different from the earlier certificate submitted with the application form.
Thus, for this petitioner, the authorities found that two different sets of experience certificates had been submitted at two different stages, with differing content and no date of issuance.
Regarding CWJC No. 6 of 2021, the respondents stated that at the time of submitting his application, that petitioner had enclosed a training certificate issued by 6th Training Battalion, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). This certificate did not mention any date of issue and showed only three months’ experience, instead of the required two years.
At the stage of document verification, he produced a different experience certificate from Sri Krishna Brass (M.P.), again without any date of issuance, and this was also different from what was originally submitted.
The respondents thus maintained that, unlike the case of Lakhan Jatav, where there was only a lack of date of issuance on the experience certificate, the petitioners here had submitted different certificates at different times, with differing content and without dates. This, according to the respondents, violated the terms of the advertisement and raised serious doubts about the genuineness and consistency of their claimed experience.
The respondents also pointed out that Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 clearly stipulated instrument-wise vacancies and required candidates to apply for a specific instrument. Yet, the petitioners’ experience certificates mentioned experience with multiple instruments (three or four instruments), not confined to one specified instrument.
The Court took note that a similar issue had previously come before it in CWJC No. 10487 of 2020. In that case, by order dated 15.07.2022, the writ petition was dismissed because the candidate’s application and experience certificate were found to be in violation of the terms of the same advertisement.
After hearing both sides and examining the materials, particularly Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 and the experience certificates, the Court recorded its findings.
The Court observed that the Employment Notice clearly provided for instrument-wise vacancies. The certificates produced by the petitioners indicated experience in respect of various kinds of instruments, rather than a clear, specific experience on the single instrument for which they had applied.
Further, it was “admittedly” clear from the record that the certificates submitted with the application forms and those later produced at the time of document verification were different from each other. This difference was not explained in any acceptable way.
As for the plea of discrimination and parity with Lakhan Jatav, the Court distinguished the cases. It noted that though the experience certificate of Lakhan Jatav also mentioned four instruments, it was not the case that he had submitted two different certificates at two different stages. In contrast, the petitioners had done exactly that.
The Court then addressed the broader legal principle invoked by the petitioners: that equality before law under Article 14 should entitle them to the same benefit allegedly extended to another candidate even if that benefit was contrary to the rules.
The Court reiterated the settled position that equality is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Even if there is any irregularity or illegality in favour of one person, others cannot demand the same illegality or irregularity as a matter of right.
The Court observed that even if it were to find any irregularity in the selection or appointment of Lakhan Jatav, that irregularity could not be “perpetuated” by allowing the petitioners’ claims.
In light of these reasons, the Court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petitions. The discrepancies in the experience certificates, the non-compliance with the advertisement conditions, and the settled law on equality led to the rejection of the petitioners’ claims.
Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed. No direction was issued to appoint the petitioners or to reopen the recruitment process.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates participating in government recruitment, especially in the Railways and similar services.
First, it reinforces that all conditions in an employment notice, including the exact nature and duration of experience and instrument-wise vacancy rules, must be strictly followed.
Second, it shows that submitting different or inconsistent certificates at different stages of the selection process can seriously damage a candidate’s case, even if they have passed written, physical, and trade tests.
Third, it clarifies that a candidate cannot claim appointment simply because another person may have been selected despite possible irregularities. The Patna High Court has clearly said that one illegality cannot justify another.
For future candidates, this decision underscores the need for accurate, consistent, and rule-compliant documentation throughout the recruitment process.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioners, who cleared all stages of recruitment for Constable (Band) but whose experience certificates were inconsistent and not in full conformity with the advertisement, were entitled to a mandamus directing their appointment.
Answer: No. The Court held that the petitioners’ experience certificates violated the terms of Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016, were inconsistent at different stages, and did not justify interference with the recruitment decision. - Issue: Whether the petitioners could claim parity and appointment on the ground that another candidate (Lakhan Jatav) had been appointed despite alleged similar deficiencies in his experience certificate.
Answer: No. The Court held that equality before law cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity, and that the factual situation of the petitioners was also different because they had submitted two different certificates at two different stages.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Court referred to its earlier decision in C.W.J.C. No. 10487 of 2020, order dated 15.07.2022, where a similar challenge under the same Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 was dismissed for violation of advertisement terms.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 206 of 2021; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6 of 2021
Case Title: Bijendra Dhanak v. Union of India & Ors.; Suraj Bain v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 1
Advocates:
- For the petitioner in CWJC No. 206 of 2021: Mrs. Ritika Rai, Advocate
- For the Union of India in CWJC No. 206 of 2021: Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
- For the petitioner in CWJC No. 6 of 2021: Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
- For the Union of India in CWJC No. 6 of 2021: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under civil writ jurisdiction seeking mandamus for appointment to the post of Constable (Band) in RPF/RPSF under Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016, and challenging rejection of candidature.
Date of Judgment: 12-11-2024
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjA2IzIwMjEjMSNO-tXblIYdW5Kg=
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.
