Case Background
This case arose from a recruitment process for the post of Fisheries Extension Officer in the Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar.
On 06.04.2021, Advertisement No. 02 of 2021 was issued to fill 136 posts of Fisheries Extension Officer. The last date for submission of online applications was fixed as 05.05.2021.
The petitioners applied in response to this advertisement. They claimed to be fully eligible and to have fulfilled all criteria under the advertisement and the applicable recruitment rules.
Later, from 25.06.2021 onwards, 198 new posts of Fisheries Extension Officer were stated to have been created and sanctioned. A proposal was sent within the government to fill these new posts along with the earlier advertised posts.
Meanwhile, the Bihar Technical Service Commission conducted the recruitment and declared the final result on 19.02.2022. The names and registration numbers of the petitioners did not appear in this final result.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court by way of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3981 of 2022. They sought directions to treat them and other similar candidates as successful against the 198 newly created posts and to stay the appointment process.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri. The Court heard counsel for the petitioners, the State, and the Bihar Technical Service Commission.
The petitioners’ main prayer was for a writ directing the State authorities and the Bihar Technical Service Commission to consider and declare them successful candidates for the post of Fisheries Extension Officer against 198 new vacant and sanctioned posts.
They wanted these 198 posts, created after the advertisement, to be added to Advertisement No. 02 of 2021 for Fisheries Extension Officer. They relied on the “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation” and on several letters and rules.
The petitioners pointed out that:
First, the State had not conducted an examination for Fisheries Extension Officers for more than 23 years. Therefore, according to them, all existing vacancies, including the newly created 198 posts, should be filled in this single recruitment drive.
Second, they referred to letter dated 25.06.2021 (File No. 1513) and letter dated 13.09.2021 (Letter No. 1176) issued by the Special Secretary and the Director of Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar. These letters indicated that 198 posts had been newly sanctioned.
Third, the petitioners argued that not filling these 198 posts in the same recruitment would violate their right to equality of opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, especially as they claimed to be the most eligible and suitable candidates.
Fourth, they relied on the Bihar Animal and Fisheries Resource Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2020. They referred in particular to Rule 2(b), which deals with work experience of employees appointed on contract basis for agricultural and fisheries work in the Fisheries Directorate, subordinate offices, other State departments, or government-affiliated offices, and to its substitution at Rule 6 of the 2007 Recruitment Rules. They suggested that these provisions supported their claim for consideration.
The petitioners also sought an interim order to stay the appointment process for Fisheries Extension Officer in pursuance of Advertisement No. 02 of 2021 during the pendency of the writ petition.
To support their legal stand, they relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2002) 10 SCC 549. They read this judgment as supporting the idea that additional vacancies arising during a selection could be considered in the same recruitment process.
The core question framed by the Patna High Court was very specific: does the Court have jurisdiction to direct the selecting and appointing authority to take note of newly created vacancies after 05.05.2021, the last date of submission of applications?
The Court began by examining the timeline of events. The advertisement was issued on 06.04.2021, specifying 136 posts and fixing 05.05.2021 as the last date for submission of applications. It was only from 25.06.2021 that the 198 new posts were stated to have been created.
The Court noted that these new posts came into existence much after the last date of application. Therefore, including them in the ongoing recruitment would amount to altering the terms of the advertisement after the cut-off date.
The Court then focused on the importance of the last date of application in recruitment processes. It held that eligibility criteria are to be fulfilled by prospective applicants as on the last date of submission of application, which was 05.05.2021 in this case.
If the 198 newly created posts were added to the existing advertisement, it would effectively extend the last date of application beyond 05.05.2021. This could open the door to new applicants who became eligible after that date, thereby changing the pool of candidates and disturbing the settled eligibility framework.
In simple terms, the Court treated the last date of application as a firm cut-off point. Any attempt to add new posts after that date would interfere with the recruitment structure fixed on 06.04.2021 and 05.05.2021.
The Court then considered the legal nature of the petitioners’ request. It characterised the decision whether or not to add newly created posts to an ongoing advertisement as a pure policy matter of the State Government and the appointing authority.
On this point, the Court relied on two Supreme Court judgments:
First, P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Accountant General & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, where the Supreme Court held that matters relating to the creation of posts, prescription of qualifications, and other service conditions fall within the domain of policy decisions.
Second, Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, which also recognised that decisions about recruitment and addition of posts are in the realm of executive policy unless tainted by illegality or arbitrariness.
On the other hand, the decision cited by the petitioners in Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 549 did not assist them. The Patna High Court expressly held that this judgment did not apply to the present facts, because any adding of posts to an existing advertisement is itself a policy decision of the government.
Thus, even if vacancies existed or were subsequently created, it was for the State and the Bihar Technical Service Commission to decide whether to fill them in the ongoing recruitment or through a separate future notification. The Court could not compel them to merge the new posts into an already closed advertisement.
After analysing these aspects, the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to direct the selecting and appointing authority to add the newly created 198 posts to Advertisement No. 02 of 2021.
In effect, the petitioners’ claims based on legitimate expectation, Article 16, and departmental letters were rejected. The Court did not find any legal right in the petitioners to demand appointment against the newly created posts through the same recruitment.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. No interference was made with the ongoing appointment process based on Advertisement No. 02 of 2021. There is no indication in the judgment of any further directions or relief for the petitioners.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for job aspirants in Bihar and elsewhere who participate in government recruitments.
It clarifies that once an advertisement is issued with a fixed number of posts and a clear last date for applications, candidates cannot insist that fresh vacancies created later must automatically be added to the same recruitment.
The decision reinforces that the last date of application is a crucial cut-off date. Eligibility and competition are frozen as on that date.
If new posts are sanctioned after that date, it is up to the government and the recruiting body to decide whether to include them in the existing process or advertise them separately. Courts will be slow to interfere in such policy choices unless a clear legal right is violated.
For candidates, this means that even if more posts come up during or after a recruitment, they cannot rely on legitimate expectation alone to claim appointment in those additional posts through the same selection.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the Patna High Court direct the State Government and Bihar Technical Service Commission to add 198 newly created vacancies of Fisheries Extension Officer, sanctioned after 05.05.2021, to Advertisement No. 02 of 2021 dated 06.04.2021?
Answer: No. The Court held that adding newly created posts to an existing advertisement after the last date of application would disturb the eligibility framework and effectively extend the cut-off date. Such addition is a pure policy decision of the State, and the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the authorities to merge those posts with the earlier advertisement.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 549 – cited by the petitioners but held not applicable to the present case.
- P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Accountant General & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 632 – relied upon by the Court to hold that matters like adding posts in recruitment are policy decisions.
- Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 242 – also relied upon to emphasise that decisions on creation and addition of posts lie within executive policy.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3981 of 2022
Case Title: Chandrabir Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 124
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 22.03.2022
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP 5
- For Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC): Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
Respondents: State of Bihar through its General Administration Department and Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, and Bihar Technical Service Commission officials.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging the non-inclusion of 198 newly created posts in an ongoing recruitment for Fisheries Extension Officer and seeking directions to declare petitioners successful for those posts.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
