Case Background
This case arises from recruitment to the post of Assistant Curator/Research and Publication Officer/Assistant Director in the Department of Art, Culture and Youth, Government of Bihar.
The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued Advertisement No. 65 of 2020 on 30.09.2020 for 12 vacant posts. The last date for submitting online applications was 30.10.2020.
The petitioner, Sudha Singh, applied for the post of Assistant Curator. She already held a Master of Arts degree in Ancient Indian History and Archaeology from Patna University, obtained on 28.03.2011.
Under the original advertisement, Clause 3 stated that all certificates relating to educational qualification must be issued on or before the last date of the online application, i.e. 30.10.2020. At that time, the petitioner did not possess a postgraduate diploma in Museology or Archaeology with 55% marks.
Later, following a representation in another case (CWJC No. 496 of 2021), the service rules and the educational qualifications in Advertisement No. 65 of 2020 were amended. BPSC issued a first corrigendum on 30.12.2022, and then a second corrigendum on 07.12.2023.
The petitioner updated her application after the first corrigendum and claimed eligibility on the basis of a postgraduate diploma obtained on 03.01.2022 from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi.
She appeared in the written examination held on 25.03.2023 and was declared successful when results were published on 24.05.2023. She was later called for document verification on 28.02.2024 along with other successful candidates.
However, on 22.08.2024, BPSC published a list of ineligible candidates. The petitioner’s name was at serial number 21 with the remark “Ineligible – PG Diploma After Cut Off Date”. Feeling aggrieved, she filed this writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, focused on one central question: what was the correct cut-off date for possessing the required educational qualifications after the corrigenda were issued, and whether the petitioner met that date.
The Court first noted the structure of the recruitment. On a requisition from the Department of Art, Culture and Youth, BPSC issued Advertisement No. 65 of 2020 on 30.09.2020 for 12 posts of Assistant Curator/Research and Publication Officer/Assistant Director.
Clause 3 of the original advertisement clearly said that all educational qualification certificates had to be issued before the last date of online application, which was 30.10.2020.
From the record, the Court found that the petitioner had her postgraduate degree in Ancient Indian History and Archaeology from 28.03.2011, much before 30.10.2020. However, on the cut-off date of 30.10.2020 she did not have the postgraduate diploma in Museology/Archaeology with 55% marks.
After another candidate, Hari Krishna Prasad, moved the High Court in CWJC No. 496 of 2021, that case was disposed of on 28.06.2021 with liberty to approach the authorities through a representation. Following this, the Department amended the service rules and the educational qualification in Advertisement No. 65 of 2020.
Based on the amended rules, BPSC issued the first corrigendum on 30.12.2022. The corrigendum changed the essential qualification to:
(a) postgraduate degree in Ancient Indian History and Culture/Archaeology or Ancient Indian and Asiatic Studies/Ancient Indian History and Art History; and
(b) postgraduate diploma in Museology/postgraduate diploma in Archaeology with minimum 55% marks, or three years’ work experience in excavation, conservation or museum work.
Most importantly, this corrigendum allowed two things. First, fresh applications could be filed from 02.01.2023 to 16.01.2023. Second, candidates who had already applied could edit their applications and update their educational qualifications through an “Edit option” from 02.01.2023 to 23.01.2023.
The petitioner used this edit option and uploaded her postgraduate diploma in Archaeology & Museology dated 03.01.2022.
The Court then closely examined the note at the bottom of the first corrigendum. That note clearly stated that all necessary instructions were already provided in the original advertisement and would remain unchanged.
In the Court’s opinion, this meant that the corrigendum only extended the time for filing or editing applications, but did not explicitly change the original cut-off date of 30.10.2020 for when certificates had to be issued.
Next, BPSC issued a second corrigendum on 07.12.2023. This corrigendum did two things. First, it reallocated the 12 posts among different reservation categories. One seat each in the Unreserved and Backward Class categories was shifted to Scheduled Tribe (backlog) and Backward Class (Female) (backlog).
Second, it invited applications from candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class (Female), as those categories now got one seat each. The written examination for these two newly invited categories was held on 04.02.2024.
Crucially, the second corrigendum also stated that certificates showing the amended educational eligibility and experience, as per the first corrigendum dated 30.12.2022, had to be issued on or before 19.12.2023, which was the last date for filling up applications mentioned in this second corrigendum. Otherwise, the candidature would be rejected.
The petitioner argued that this cut-off date of 19.12.2023 applied to all candidates under Advertisement No. 65 of 2020, not only to the ST and Backward Class (Female) categories. Her degree and diploma were both issued before 19.12.2023, so she claimed she was eligible.
BPSC opposed the petition. Its counsel submitted that BPSC’s role was only to conduct the selection as per the requisition and rules. According to BPSC, even after the corrigendum of 30.12.2022, the essential qualification had to be obtained before 30.10.2020, the original last date of application. Since the petitioner did not have the postgraduate diploma by 30.10.2020, she was correctly treated as ineligible. BPSC relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 and Divya v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCC 448 to support its stand on cut-off dates.
The Court did not accept this reasoning. While agreeing that the first corrigendum did not change the original cut-off date by itself, the Court held that the second corrigendum did introduce a new relevant date.
On a careful reading of the second corrigendum, the Court found that it required that the certificates showing the amended educational qualification and experience (introduced by the first corrigendum) must be issued by 19.12.2023. The Court specifically rejected the BPSC’s interpretation that this new date applied only to candidates in Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class (Female) categories.
The Court reasoned that it would be illogical and arbitrary to have two different dates for obtaining essential educational qualifications for the same selection process. One date (19.12.2023) for Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class (Female) candidates, and another earlier date (30.10.2020) for Scheduled Caste, Economically Weaker Section and Unreserved candidates, would create unequal treatment.
Therefore, the Court held that the last date for issuance of certificates showing educational qualification and eligibility for all candidates, in respect of the amended qualification, was 19.12.2023.
It was undisputed that the petitioner had obtained her Master’s degree on 28.03.2011 and her postgraduate diploma on 03.01.2022. Both were issued well before 19.12.2023.
In the Court’s view, BPSC made an error in putting the petitioner in the ineligible list dated 22.08.2024 on the ground “PG Diploma After Cut Off Date”. Since she actually held the diploma well before the correct cut-off date, she was wrongly disqualified.
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court decisions cited by BPSC were on different facts. As the factual situation here involved later corrigenda changing the relevant date, those judgments did not help BPSC.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the ineligible candidates list dated 22.08.2024, but only so far as it related to the petitioner.
It directed BPSC to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview scheduled on 14.03.2026 and to consider her for selection and appointment along with other successful candidates.
With these directions, the writ application was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all job seekers appearing in BPSC and other government recruitments where advertisements are later modified through corrigenda.
The Court made it clear that when a later corrigendum introduces a new last date for certificates related to amended qualifications, that date applies uniformly. The authority cannot apply one cut-off date for some categories and an older date for others in the same selection.
For candidates, this judgment shows that if you genuinely hold the required qualification before the correct cut-off date, you should not be declared ineligible because of an incorrect or confused interpretation by the recruiting body.
For recruiting agencies like BPSC, the decision underlines the need for clear and consistent application of cut-off dates, especially after amendments. If the advertisement changes, the cut-off logic must also be applied fairly to everyone.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether, after the first and second corrigenda to Advertisement No. 65 of 2020, the correct cut-off date for possessing the amended educational qualification was 30.10.2020 or 19.12.2023 for the petitioner.
Answer: The Court held that the cut-off date for issuance of certificates regarding the amended educational qualification was 19.12.2023 for all candidates, not just for Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class (Female) categories. - Issue: Whether BPSC was justified in declaring the petitioner ineligible on the ground that her postgraduate diploma was obtained after the cut-off date.
Answer: No. Since the petitioner had obtained both her degree and postgraduate diploma before 19.12.2023, BPSC wrongly treated her as ineligible. The ineligible list was set aside as against her, and she was directed to be allowed in the interview.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors.; (2007) 4 SCC 54 – cited by BPSC, but held by the Court to be distinguishable on facts.
- Divya v. Union of India & Ors.; (2024) 1 SCC 448 – cited by BPSC, but also found not applicable to the present factual situation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16895 of 2024
Case Title: Sudha Singh v. The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 606
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 12.03.2026
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior Advocate; Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Md. N.H. Khan, SC-1
- For BPSC: Mr. Zaki Haider, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging rejection of candidature and ineligibility list in a recruitment process conducted by BPSC.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment – CWJC No. 16895 of 2024
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.
