Case Background
The writ petition was filed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13312 of 2021 before the Patna High Court. The petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (STET), 2019 conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
An advertisement was issued in 2019 by the Bihar School Examination Board. It informed candidates that a Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (STET), 2019 and Physical Education and Health Instructors Eligibility Test, 2019 would be conducted. Posts were mentioned against different subjects in the advertisement.
The advertisement laid down a selection process. A merit list had to be prepared based on marks obtained by each candidate in each subject and category. It also contained a specific clause about how to prepare a merit list when candidates secured equal marks.
The petitioner claimed that examinations were conducted and a subject-wise merit list was prepared as per the advertisement. However, later the State’s Education Department issued an order dated 26.06.2021. By this order, all candidates who appeared in STET 2019 and secured minimum qualifying marks were to be treated as qualified and entitled to participate in future selection processes for teachers.
The petitioner felt aggrieved by this change. He approached the Patna High Court, questioning the validity of the State Government’s order dated 26.06.2021 and seeking enforcement of the original merit-based process under the 2019 advertisement.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core complaint of the petitioner was that the State Government had changed the method of recruitment after the examination, which allegedly affected the rights of candidates who had scored higher marks. According to him, the posts advertised in 2019 had to be filled strictly on the basis of the merit list prepared as per the advertisement.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the advertisement conditions. He argued that once the advertisement had provided that posts would be filled through a merit list based on marks obtained, the State was bound to follow that process. He also pointed out that criteria for resolving tie cases (when candidates obtained equal marks) had been clearly laid down, showing that the selection was meant to be a full recruitment exercise, not just a qualifying test.
On this foundation, the petitioner criticised the Education Department’s order dated 26.06.2021. He said it unlawfully gave a “go by” to the merit list and treated all those who had secured minimum qualifying marks as simply eligible to participate in some future selection process. In his view, this wiped out the advantage of those who had secured higher marks and who should have had a preferential right to appointment on the advertised posts.
The State Government filed a counter affidavit. It gave factual details about the conduct of the STET 2019 examinations. The Board conducted the exam from 09.09.2020 to 21.09.2020. The result of 24,599 candidates was declared as qualified on 12.03.2021, against a total of 30,332 vacancies. Later, the results of three more subjects were declared and 6,077 additional candidates were declared qualified.
The State explained the basic nature of the STET examination. It stated that STET is a qualifying test, essential for seeking appointment as a teacher. A person who qualifies STET, along with the necessary academic and training qualifications for a particular post, becomes eligible to participate in recruitment processes conducted by different employing units within Panchayat Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies.
The State emphasised that those who qualify STET do not acquire any right to be selected or appointed. STET is only a qualifying examination. The State further referred to Clause 14(G) of the 2019 advertisement. This clause clearly stated that there would be no compulsion for recruitment merely because a candidate had qualified the eligibility test. The Education Department would later invite applications from qualified candidates and undertake selection against vacant posts by following the prescribed procedure.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court examined the legal position on whether a candidate secures an enforceable right to appointment merely because he has qualified in a test or figured in a list.
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612. The judgment, quoted at length by the Court, lays down that when a number of vacancies are notified and candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. The notification is generally only an invitation to qualified candidates to apply, and the State is not legally bound to fill all or any of the vacancies unless recruitment rules specifically so provide.
The Supreme Court further held in Shankarsan Dash that although the State is not compelled to fill all vacancies, it cannot act arbitrarily. If it chooses to fill the vacancies, it must respect comparative merit as reflected in the recruitment test and must avoid discrimination. The Patna High Court noted this settled position and found no discordant note in the other Supreme Court decisions cited within that passage.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court held that no vested right had been created in favour of candidates who had merely qualified the STET exam. Even though the advertisement mentioned various posts against subjects, the Court accepted the State’s stand that the Government had not intended to fill up those posts directly under that advertisement.
The Court noted another important factual aspect: the posts were actually to be filled by Panchayats and Zila Parishads under the rules framed for them. Each employing unit is required to fill up posts in its own Panchayat or Zila Parishad. In that context, the State had decided that the STET examination would function only as an eligibility test.
On this basis, the Court upheld the State’s action of declaring the examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board as a qualifying examination, treating all minimum-qualified candidates as STET-qualified. This, the Court said, could not be termed illegal or unjustified.
The Court highlighted that all candidates who passed STET 2019 and secured the minimum qualifying marks were now treated as qualified to participate in the later selection process. However, the selection process for each employing unit had to be carried out separately. Only those candidates who, in such individual selections, found their place in the merit list according to the applicable rules would get a chance of appointment in their respective units.
The Court interpreted this as a decentralisation of the appointment procedure for teachers in various Districts, Panchayats and Zila Parishads. The general 2019 advertisement, therefore, had not been acted upon as a direct recruitment advertisement in the manner assumed by the petitioner.
Next, the Court considered whether this governmental decision could be subject to judicial review. In the Court’s opinion, this decision fell within the exclusive executive domain. Such administrative decisions, when taken bona fide and within the bounds of law, are generally not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court judgment in P. Susheela and Others v. University Grants Commission, (2015) 8 SCC 129. The quoted passage clarifies that a vested right arises only when a person is actually appointed to the post. Until appointment, a candidate has only a right to be considered, which remains subject to changing minimum eligibility conditions. The Supreme Court held that introducing an additional eligibility condition, like a NET test, does not affect any vested right and operates prospectively at the stage of appointment.
Drawing strength from P. Susheela, the Patna High Court held that the petitioners had at most a right to be considered for appointment, subject to eligibility conditions fixed by the State. There was no vested right to insist that recruitment must occur exactly as perceived from the 2019 advertisement.
The petitioner had also relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512, relating to changing the “rules of the game” midway in a selection process. The Patna High Court, however, found that this principle did not apply here. According to the Court, this was not a case where the rules of the game had been altered midway during an ongoing selection.
Instead, it was a case where the State Government had decided to give a complete “go by” to the entire 2019 advertisement and had resolved not to fill the posts under that advertisement at all. Since the advertisement itself was not being implemented as a direct recruitment exercise, and the appointments were to be made separately by local bodies based on eligibility, the grievance of midstream change was rejected.
The Court also observed that there was no allegation or proof of discrimination against the petitioner vis-a-vis other candidates. All candidates who passed STET with minimum qualifying marks were being treated in the same manner, as merely eligible to participate in subsequent selections. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim any special treatment based on his higher marks in STET.
In conclusion, the Court held that no interference was warranted. The writ petition was found to be misconceived and was accordingly dismissed. No further directions were issued regarding appointments or alteration of the State’s policy.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for thousands of candidates who appear in teacher eligibility tests like STET in Bihar. It clarifies that clearing such an exam, even where an advertisement mentions vacancies, does not automatically give a right to appointment.
The Patna High Court has accepted the State Government’s decision to treat STET 2019 as only a qualifying examination. Recruitment will now be handled separately by Panchayats, Zila Parishads and other local units based on their own selection processes.
For candidates, the message is clear: qualifying STET only opens the door to participate in later recruitments. It does not guarantee a job, even if you have scored higher marks than others. The Government can also decide not to fill advertised posts, provided it acts fairly and without discrimination.
The judgment also shows the limited role of the High Court in interfering with executive policy decisions about how to conduct recruitment, especially where no vested right or discrimination is shown.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Does qualifying in STET 2019 and being placed in a merit list under the 2019 advertisement create a legal right to appointment on the advertised posts?
Answer: No. The Court held that STET is only a qualifying examination and no vested right to appointment arises merely from qualifying or from any merit list.
Issue: Was the State Government’s order dated 26.06.2021, treating STET 2019 as a qualifying test and decentralising recruitment, illegal for changing the rules mid-way?
Answer: No. The Court held that the State had decided not to act on the 2019 advertisement at all and to decentralise appointments, which falls within its executive domain and is not a change of rules mid-way.
Issue: Was there any discrimination by the State in treating the petitioner differently from other candidates who appeared in STET 2019?
Answer: No. The Court found no discrimination; all candidates securing minimum qualifying marks were treated alike as eligible for future selection processes.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612.
- P. Susheela and Others v. University Grants Commission, (2015) 8 SCC 129.
- K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 (held not applicable on facts).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13312 of 2021
Case Title: Bipin Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 346
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, Standing Counsel 16.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging the State Government’s decision regarding treatment of STET 2019 as a qualifying examination and related recruitment process.
Date of Judgment: 18-04-2022
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Link to 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.
