Case Background
The Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society (BPSMS) is a government-sponsored society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Its work is to improve government administration, make it more transparent and efficient, and support implementation of laws like the Bihar Right to Public Services Act, 2011 and the Bihar Right to Grievance Redressal Act, 2015.
To run Right to Public Services counters and grievance cells at district, subdivision and block levels, BPSMS created posts of IT Managers, IT Assistants and Executive Assistants. Executive Assistants basically work as Data Entry Operators for receiving applications, entering data, and issuing certificates or orders.
Around 2015, BPSMS began a process to engage Executive Assistants on contract. At first, recruitment and panel-making was centrally controlled, but later, by Letter No. 910 dated 02.07.2018, BPSMS decided that districts would themselves publish advertisements and prepare panels/merit lists for Executive Assistants.
District Magistrates, including those of Saran and Rohtas, issued advertisements in August 2018. For example, Saran issued Memo No. 1197 dated 10.08.2018 and Rohtas advertised on 06.08.2018. The petitioners applied and participated in the selection process, which included written and typing tests.
In Saran, a final merit list of 927 candidates was prepared and published on 28.12.2018. Earlier, by Letter No. 440 dated 05.05.2016, the Mission Director had fixed the life of such district panels at three years. Later, Memo No. 436 dated 26.02.2019 extended the service period of Executive Assistants up to 60 years of age or closure of the scheme, removing the need for yearly contract renewals.
Meanwhile, many departments like Panchayati Raj, Science and Technology, and even the Director General of Police requested BPSMS to provide Executive Assistants from these district panels for their offices.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The dispute arose after BPSMS changed its recruitment policy through decisions taken in its Governing Council meetings and follow-up letters.
In its 23rd meeting held on 08.07.2019, the Governing Council decided that newly sanctioned posts of Executive Assistants would no longer be filled from district-level panels. Instead, vacancies would be filled through Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (BELTRON) by requisitioning Data Entry Operators from BELTRON’s panel, following the Model Reservation Roster.
This decision was implemented through Memo No. 1382 dated 31.07.2019 issued by the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) of BPSMS. Under that memo, new posts of Executive Assistant were to be filled through BELTRON, and districts were directed to make requisitions to BELTRON for Data Entry Operators.
Candidates already empanelled at district level, including the petitioners, objected. In the 24th meeting of the Governing Council on 20.09.2019, BPSMS considered their situation. It decided that in districts where the panel process had been fully completed before 31.07.2019, services of Executive Assistants could still be taken from those panels to meet departmental requirements. However, the matter was deferred for further discussion and no final, detailed decision specifically in favour of the petitioners was taken at that time.
On 23.12.2019, BPSMS issued Memo No. 2341. This modified the earlier memo and introduced a new arrangement:
First, appointments of Executive Assistants could still be made from existing district panels, but only for a short period of three months.
Second, continuation beyond three months would depend on the candidate passing an eligibility or proficiency test for Data Entry Operators conducted by BELTRON. BPSMS would bear the examination fee. After BELTRON completed its own panel process, no fresh selections would be made from district panels. New vacancies would be filled only through BELTRON.
The petitioners challenged:
- the 23rd Governing Council decision of 08.07.2019 (so far as it shifted recruitment to BELTRON),
- Memo No. 1382 dated 31.07.2019, and
- Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019.
They also sought directions that:
- all sanctioned vacancies of Executive Assistant be filled only from the district-level merit lists/panels,
- the life of their panels be recognised as three years under Letter No. 440 dated 05.05.2016, and
- BELTRON be restrained from conducting the selection process for Executive Assistants under these decisions.
The petitioners argued that they had already gone through a rigorous selection process at district level, including written and typing tests. Forcing them again to sit in BELTRON’s test was, according to them, an unjust extra burden, arbitrary, and an abuse of power. They also pointed to the heavy demand for Executive Assistants in various departments and said there was no reason to scrap existing panels, especially when panels were valid for three years and still in force when the impugned orders were issued.
They claimed violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and alleged that the impugned orders were colourable exercises of power and mala fide.
On behalf of the State and BPSMS, it was argued that:
- mere inclusion of a person’s name in a panel does not give that person any right to appointment,
- an employer has the authority to fix or upgrade eligibility standards before actual appointment, and
- the changes aimed to standardise recruitment and ensure parity with BELTRON’s Data Entry Operators.
BPSMS submitted that recruitment processes for Executive Assistants differed from district to district, and their remuneration had been lower than that of BELTRON’s Data Entry Operators, despite similar work. Once parity in pay was accepted, it was important to adopt a uniform and higher recruitment standard as well.
BELTRON explained that its Data Entry Operators are empanelled only after a uniform examination process. It supported BPSMS’s move to require Executive Assistants to clear a test of the same standard.
The Court also noted an earlier judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in Abhishek Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 5823 of 2020, decided on 23.08.2021). There, similar claims were rejected and the Court held that inclusion in a panel does not create a right to appointment, and that the policy decision to engage Executive Assistants from BELTRON’s panel was not unreasonable.
The petitioners relied on another co-ordinate Bench judgment in CWJC No. 7459 of 2020 (decided on 01.12.2021), where candidates who had already been appointed pursuant to an earlier advertisement were protected against a later, additional requirement of passing BELTRON’s test. The High Court, in that case, held that the 23.12.2019 order had only prospective effect and could not change the rules for those whose recruitment process had already been completed and appointments issued.
Justice Dr. Anshuman examined this distinction carefully. In the present case, all the petitioners were only panel candidates. No appointment orders had been issued to them, except for petitioner nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, unlike in CWJC No. 7459 of 2020, they had not yet acquired any appointment status when Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019 came into force.
The Court accepted the principle, reaffirmed in Abhishek Kumar, that inclusion of a name in a panel by itself does not confer a right to be appointed. At the same time, relying on State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj, the Court acknowledged that a valid panel should be used fully before outsiders are considered.
Balancing these, the Court upheld BPSMS’s policy but read it in a way that protects the interest of panel candidates. It held that Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019 does not deprive the petitioners; instead, it gives them an opportunity to qualify to the same standard as BELTRON’s Data Entry Operators, with examination fees borne by BPSMS.
The Court further observed that taking a test after grant of a three-month appointment period actually safeguards the interests of those selected from district panels who would otherwise have had no right to appointment at all.
Therefore, the Court refused to quash Memo No. 1382 dated 31.07.2019, especially since it stood modified by Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019. Instead, the Court issued directions to ensure fair treatment of panel candidates.
The final operative directions were:
- Till the exhaustion of the district panels, no person outside those panels shall be considered for appointment as Executive Assistant.
- Candidates from the district panels will first be given appointment for three months in terms of Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019.
- During this period, they will be given an opportunity to appear in the BELTRON test, with costs borne by the respondents.
- Only if a panel candidate fails to clear the test can persons other than those in the district panel be appointed.
- All steps under Memo No. 2341 must be completed within three months from the date of the High Court’s order, and the entire exercise must be concluded within six months.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for thousands of candidates in Bihar who find their names in government panels but do not get immediate appointments. The Patna High Court has clearly said that a place in a panel by itself does not guarantee a job. Government can raise standards and change recruitment methods before actual appointments.
At the same time, the Court protected panel candidates from being ignored or replaced overnight. It directed that all vacancies must first be offered to candidates already in the district panels and that outsiders can be considered only if these candidates fail to meet the new standard.
For people aspiring to work as Executive Assistants or Data Entry Operators in Bihar, this means two things. One, they should not assume that appearing in one test is the end of the process. Two, if the rules change, they still have a right to be considered first and to be given a fair chance to clear any fresh, reasonable test.
For government departments and BPSMS, the judgment confirms that they are free to standardise recruitment and insist on uniform qualifications, provided they act fairly towards those already in existing panels.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Does inclusion of a candidate’s name in a district panel for Executive Assistant create a legal right to appointment, preventing BPSMS from changing the recruitment policy to use BELTRON’s panel?
Answer: No. The Court held that inclusion in a panel does not give any enforceable right to appointment. BPSMS can adopt a new policy and require BELTRON-standard tests, provided existing panel candidates are treated fairly. - Issue: Are Memo No. 1382 dated 31.07.2019 and Memo No. 2341 dated 23.12.2019 arbitrary or illegal for insisting that panel candidates must clear a BELTRON test and for shifting future recruitment to BELTRON?
Answer: No. The Court found the policy reasonable and in public interest, aimed at uniform recruitment standards. It declined to quash the memos but directed that panel candidates be given priority and opportunity to qualify. - Issue: Can the State or BPSMS ignore an existing three-year panel and appoint outsiders before that panel is exhausted?
Answer: No. The Court directed that until the district panels are exhausted, no person outside the panel shall be considered. Only if panel candidates fail to clear the BELTRON test can outsiders be appointed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Abhishek Kumar and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors, CWJC No. 5823 of 2020, Patna High Court, decided on 23.08.2021.
- CWJC No. 7459 of 2020 with analogous case, Patna High Court, decided on 01.12.2021 (relating to applicability of 23.12.2019 order to earlier recruitment).
- Director SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and Anr. vs. M. Pushkaran, (2008) 1 SCC 448.
- State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj, (2000) 3 SCC 699.
- Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4028 of 2020
Case Title: Binod Kumar & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 01.03.2024
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 296
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging policy decisions and departmental memos regarding recruitment and engagement of Executive Assistants under Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society and BELTRON.
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Shristi Singh, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Saroj Sharma, Advocate.
- For BELTRON: Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
