Case Background
The matter arose from a recruitment process conducted through counselling in 52 Employment Units in Purnia district under the Education Department of the State of Bihar.
The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnia had conducted counselling for appointments. Complaints were made about irregularities in this counselling process. In response, a three Members Committee was constituted to enquire into these complaints.
After enquiry, the Committee recommended cancellation of the entire counselling conducted in all 52 Employment Units. Acting on this report, the Director (Primary Education), Government of Bihar passed an order dated 25.01.2022 cancelling the entire counselling.
The Education Department then held fresh counselling, including a re-counselling fixed on 28.01.2022 (and referred to as subsequent counselling being conducted on 22.01.2022 in the petitioner’s representation).
The petitioner, a candidate who claimed to have participated in the earlier counselling and to have been offered appointment, filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3521 of 2022 before the Patna High Court. He challenged the Director’s order dated 25.01.2022 cancelling the counselling in all 52 Employment Units.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma on 21.03.2022. The matter was taken up from the defect side, with the Court directing the petitioner’s counsel to file the original petition with attested affidavits and to remove registry defects within two weeks.
Despite these procedural directions, the Court proceeded to examine the challenge to the cancellation order dated 25.01.2022 on merits.
The petitioner’s main grievance was that the entire counselling had been cancelled due to alleged faults committed at the level of officers. He argued that if there was any wrongdoing, it was on the part of the officials, and an individual candidate like him, who had participated in counselling and was offered appointment, should not be made to suffer.
The petitioner further submitted that he did not get a proper opportunity to participate in the re-counselling conducted after cancellation, specifically referring to the counselling said to have been conducted on 28.01.2022.
The Court considered these submissions and then went into the material available, particularly the report of the three Members Committee which investigated the earlier counselling conducted in the 52 Employment Units of Purnia district.
On reading this report, the Court found that at each Employment Unit, the counselling process was faulty. The irregularities were not limited to one or two centres but were spread across all units examined.
The report showed that persons having lower merit had been placed against the General quota, while more meritorious candidates were left out. This meant that candidates who should have been selected on merit were not being given their rightful place.
At some places, counselling was first done for candidates belonging to the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) and only later for general category candidates. Because of this sequence, higher meritorious EBC candidates, who in a proper process would have been adjusted in the General category, were instead confined to the EBC quota.
This led to a situation where merit was “seriously compromised”. Persons with lower merit were being appointed, and candidates with higher merit were being left out of selection.
Faced with such widespread flaws, the three Members Committee decided that the only fair course was to cancel the entire counselling process. This recommendation was accepted by the Director, who issued the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 cancelling the counselling for all 52 Employment Units. Fresh counselling was then conducted.
The Patna High Court examined whether this decision of the Education Department was legal and justified. It held that when, upon full scrutiny, a selection process is found to be faulty, the administrative authorities are entitled to cancel it.
The Court expressly rejected the idea that the principle of estoppel could protect selections made through such a tainted process. It observed that there is “no estoppel against law”. If an appointment has come about through an illegal or wrongful action, even if the individual candidate did not personally commit any wrongdoing, he or she cannot claim a legal right to continue in that appointment.
In other words, where the foundation of the recruitment itself is illegal or flawed, individual equities cannot override the need to restore legality and fairness to the process.
The Court noted that the Director’s decision was not targeted at any single Employment Unit or individual. The cancellation was applied uniformly to all 52 Employment Units where counselling was held. Therefore, there was no element of discrimination or disparity in the decision.
The Court’s understanding was supported by several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It referred to:
(2003) 7 SCC 285 (Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr.), (2014) 6 SCC 644 (Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana), (2017) 13 SCC 621 (Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.) and (2021) 4 SCC 631 (Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors.).
Referring to these authorities, the Court emphasised that for maintaining the “purity of examination process” the competent authority can take a decision to cancel the entire examination or selection where largescale irregularities or unfairness are found.
On the petitioner’s specific plea that he did not get a fair chance to attend the subsequent counselling, the Court examined the record and found no support for this allegation.
The representation filed by the petitioner after the cancellation did not mention any difficulty in appearing for the re-counselling. There was no recorded demand by the petitioner seeking a new opportunity to appear. Instead, the petitioner’s representation was directed against the very holding of the subsequent counselling, seeking its cancellation.
In view of this, the Court held that the plea of not being given ample opportunity to appear in re-counselling was not substantiated by facts. The Court therefore declined to accept this argument.
Taking all aspects together, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim had “no substance” and that the legal action taken by the Education Department was to be “upheld and approved”.
Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the order dated 25.01.2022 was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for candidates involved in government recruitment processes, especially in Bihar.
First, it clarifies that if a recruitment or counselling process is found to be broadly faulty or unfair, the authorities can cancel the entire process to protect merit and fairness, even if some candidates had already been offered appointments.
Second, it underscores that there is no legal protection for appointments that stem from an illegal or defective process. A candidate cannot insist on continuing in such an appointment only because he or she participated in the process.
Third, for candidates who feel they were denied a chance in re-counselling or fresh selection, the judgment shows the importance of clearly mentioning such difficulties in their written representations. Vague or inconsistent claims raised later in court are unlikely to be accepted without supporting material.
Finally, by relying on Supreme Court decisions about maintaining the purity of examinations and selections, the Patna High Court reinforces the message that merit-based and lawful recruitment is a priority, even if it means cancelling a whole round of counselling.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the Education Department’s decision, based on the three Members Committee report, to cancel the entire counselling conducted in 52 Employment Units in Purnia by order dated 25.01.2022 was arbitrary or illegal.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that, in view of the widespread irregularities and compromise of merit, the cancellation of the faulty counselling and conduct of fresh counselling was legal, justified, and non-discriminatory. -
Issue: Whether the petitioner, who claimed to have been offered appointment and alleged lack of opportunity in re-counselling, had an enforceable right to continue or to challenge the fresh counselling.
Answer: No. The Court held there is no estoppel against law; a person entering service through an illegal or wrongful process has no right to continue. The plea about lack of opportunity in re-counselling was found unsubstantiated from the petitioner’s own representation and the record. -
Issue: Whether the cancellation of counselling only for certain units or candidates could be alleged, leading to discrimination.
Answer: No. The decision of the Director was applied to all 52 Employment Units uniformly, and therefore no discrimination or disparity was made out.
Cases Cited by the Court
- (2003) 7 SCC 285 – Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr.
- (2014) 6 SCC 644 – Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana
- (2017) 13 SCC 621 – Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- (2021) 4 SCC 631 – Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3521 of 2022
Case Title: Aman Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment: 21.03.2022
Citation: 2022(2) PLJR 105
Advocates: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, SC 16 for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging cancellation of counselling in recruitment process
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment CWJC No. 3521 of 2022
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.
