Case Background
The petitioners had applied in response to Advertisement No. 1 of 1993 issued for recruitment to the post of Assistant in the Bihar Secretariat. The recruitment process was conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).
Before appointments could be made, two major changes took place. First, with effect from 15.11.2000, the undivided State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand under the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. Second, after adoption of the Central Pay Structure, the post of Assistant was demerged into two different posts: Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and Upper Division Clerk (UDC).
The petitioners were empanelled candidates in the selection conducted by the BPSC. They approached the Patna High Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 10627 of 2001, seeking directions to the State authorities to issue appointment letters pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 1993. On 10.09.2001, the writ court allowed that petition and directed issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners and other eligible candidates for the post of Assistant in the Secretariat.
The State of Bihar challenged this order in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 109 of 2002. On 10.05.2002, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court partly allowed the appeal. It held that, in view of the decision of the Central Government after bifurcation, only two‑third of the vacancies advertised would be treated as allocated to the State of Bihar. It further directed that, since the entry post had become LDC after restructuring, the State Government should consider the empanelled candidates for appointment to the post of LDC on the said two‑third vacancies and pass suitable orders within one month.
Aggrieved by this limitation to two‑third vacancies, the present petitioners approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2003 arising out of the said LPA. On 22.04.2013, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. It noted the Division Bench directions, including the allocation of only two‑third vacancies to Bihar and the obligation of the State to consider empanelled candidates against those vacancies for appointment as LDC.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners submitted that despite the High Court’s direction, some of the empanelled candidates, including them, had not been appointed. The Supreme Court recorded that no details had been furnished but granted liberty to such empanelled candidates to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. It directed that, if they did so, the High Court should examine their cases on merits in accordance with law.
On the strength of that liberty, the petitioners filed the present Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15651 of 2013 before the Patna High Court, leading to the judgment dated 03.04.2019 delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad.
What the Court Examined and Decided
In this writ petition, the petitioners sought a direction to the State authorities to consider their cases in the light of the Supreme Court’s order dated 22.04.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2003. Their core grievance was that they remained unappointed despite being in the original empanelled list prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 1993.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the High Court, and its direction that the High Court “shall examine the same on merits in accordance with law”, meant that their claim could not be confined only to the two‑third vacancies allocated to Bihar. According to them, once their names were in the earlier merit list, they could not be pushed out merely because the number of vacancies was later reduced to two‑third of the original total.
It was further submitted on their behalf that the Division Bench in LPA No. 109 of 2002 had been wrong in dividing the total vacancies between Bihar and Jharkhand in the ratio of 2:1 and in restricting consideration to only two‑third vacancies for Bihar. They contended that they were entitled to be considered on the basis of the undivided merit list or panel of 241 candidates prepared prior to bifurcation. If that original panel was taken as the basis, they claimed they would fall within the “zone of consideration” and would be entitled to appointment.
On the other hand, the State Government, represented through counsel, opposed the petition. The State relied on a recent Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Krishan Murari Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 80. In that case, the Court had rejected similar claims for appointment based on the same Advertisement No. 1 of 1993, keeping in view the developments that had taken place since then, including subsequent recruitment processes for the same posts.
The State argued that, in view of this recent judgment, the claim of the present petitioners, who were similarly situated, must meet the same fate. The Court was told that the BPSC had already, on 20.05.2004, sent a panel of 161 candidates to the State Government in compliance with the earlier Division Bench directions in LPA No. 109 of 2002. This panel was prepared by restricting vacancies to the two‑third share allocated to Bihar and by considering merit.
Crucially, the State pointed out that the petitioners’ names did not figure in this panel of 161 candidates. It was also stated that no candidate with merit inferior to the petitioners had been included in that panel. The State therefore submitted that the matter stood concluded, and the petitioners could not claim any grievance about their non‑inclusion.
The State further submitted that, given the long time that had passed since the 1993 advertisement, the empanelment in the original panel of the undivided State could not be treated as a “perpetual reservoir” for appointments more than two decades later. On this ground too, the petitioners’ claim was opposed.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court carefully examined the scope of the earlier Division Bench judgment, the Supreme Court order and the factual situation.
The Court noted first that, under the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 109 of 2002, the petitioners’ claim for appointment had been expressly restricted to the two‑third vacancies allocated to Bihar out of the total posts advertised. The Supreme Court, while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2003, had not interfered with this arrangement. Therefore, the two‑third restriction remained intact and binding.
The Court then analysed the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. It observed that the Supreme Court had noted the petitioners’ submission that, despite the High Court’s direction, some empanelled candidates had not been appointed. The “direction of the High Court” referred to in the Supreme Court’s order was nothing other than the Division Bench directions in LPA No. 109 of 2002, which confined consideration to two‑third vacancies allotted to Bihar and to appointments on the post of LDC.
The Patna High Court reasoned that, since the petitioners themselves had approached the Supreme Court on the ground that they had not been appointed in spite of that High Court direction, their grievance before the Supreme Court was only about non‑appointment against the two‑third vacancies in Bihar. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court must therefore be understood as liberty to seek enforcement of that very direction, not to challenge its correctness or to expand the scope of vacancies.
In this background, the Court held that the present submission of the petitioners—that the Division Bench could not have bifurcated the vacancies and restricted consideration to two‑third share—was clearly unsustainable. Accepting such an argument would run directly contrary to the stand they had taken before the Supreme Court, on the basis of which they had obtained liberty to return to the High Court.
The Court further held that another obstacle for the petitioners was that the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 109 of 2002 explicitly limited their claim to the two‑third vacancies allocated to Bihar. The present writ petition, by asking for consideration against all original vacancies without giving effect to the 2:1 division, was in fact seeking relief that went against the binding decision of the Division Bench and also went beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s liberty order.
The Court then considered the factual position relating to the panel prepared after LPA No. 109 of 2002. It recorded that if the petitioners’ claim was confined to the two‑third vacancies for Bihar, then admittedly none of the candidates inferior in merit to the petitioners had been empanelled in the panel of 161 candidates dated 20.05.2004. Thus, on merits, the petitioners could not show that they had been unfairly left out while less‑meritorious candidates were included.
Taking all these aspects together, the Court concluded that the petitioners were not in a position, at this stage, to claim appointment against the entire set of original vacancies without respecting the 2:1 division that had already been finally determined. Nor could they override the Division Bench ruling or the limited nature of the liberty given by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition and dismissed the petition.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has important practical consequences for candidates who remain on old panels or waitlists for government jobs, especially where there has been a State reorganisation or major changes in service structure.
First, it confirms that once a higher court, such as a Division Bench, has finally decided how many vacancies belong to a particular State and how they are to be filled, that decision cannot be reopened indirectly through a fresh writ petition. Candidates cannot claim more posts than what has been finally allocated.
Second, it shows that liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the High Court is not a free invitation to re‑argue everything. The High Court will look carefully at what exactly was argued before the Supreme Court and will confine itself to that limited issue.
Third, the judgment underlines that a selection panel from an old advertisement cannot be treated as an endless source of appointments decades later. Over time, new recruitment processes take place, service structures change, and courts are reluctant to disturb this settled position.
For job‑seekers and advocates, this ruling of the Patna High Court serves as a reminder that challenges must be timely, and that courts will respect finality in recruitment matters, especially where no less‑meritorious candidate has been shown to be favoured.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioners, as empanelled candidates under Advertisement No. 1 of 1993, could seek appointment against all original vacancies, ignoring the allocation of only two‑third vacancies to Bihar fixed earlier by the Division Bench.
Answer: No. The Court held that their claim was restricted to the two‑third vacancies allotted to Bihar under the binding Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 109 of 2002, and that the Supreme Court had not disturbed that arrangement. - Issue: Whether the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2003 allowed the petitioners to challenge the very basis of the two‑third vacancy allocation or to demand expansion of vacancies.
Answer: No. The Court held that the liberty was only to seek relief for alleged non‑appointment despite the earlier High Court directions, not to reopen or question those directions themselves. - Issue: Whether the petitioners could claim appointment even though they were not included in the post‑LPA panel of 161 candidates prepared by BPSC in 2004.
Answer: No. Since none inferior to them in merit had been included in that panel, and the panel was prepared in full compliance with the Division Bench order, the petitioners had no legally enforceable grievance.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Krishan Murari Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 80.
- LPA No. 109 of 2002 (State of Bihar’s intra‑court appeal against the earlier writ decision) — referred and relied upon.
- Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 2003 — Supreme Court order dated 22.04.2013 granting liberty to approach the High Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15651 of 2013
Case Title: Nilesh Sharan Srivastava & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 03-04-2019
Citation: 2019 (2) PLJR 1073
Advocates: For the petitioners: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction seeking directions for appointment against vacancies arising from Advertisement No. 1 of 1993 after bifurcation of the State of Bihar.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment – CWJC No. 15651 of 2013
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.
