The Patna High Court delivered an important judgment in a dispute arising out of the recruitment process for the post of Driver Constable under Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued by the Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC). The case came before the Division Bench through a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Board challenging a Single Judge’s order dated 20 August 2018. The Single Judge had directed that if the writ petitioner had qualified and met all required conditions, he should be appointed and placed appropriately. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh allowed the appeal on 4 November 2022, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the writ petition.
The recruitment was for 1,577 posts of Driver Constables across various police units. Candidates were required to have passed 10+2 and to hold a valid driving licence for at least one year prior to the advertisement date (25 August 2016). The selection procedure included a Physical Evaluation Test (PET) followed by a Vehicle Driving Efficiency Test (DET). The merit list was to be prepared solely on the basis of marks obtained in the driving efficiency test, and the advertisement clearly warned that any discrepancy between the online application and original documents would lead to disqualification.
The dispute arose because the writ petitioner’s date of birth in his online application form matched his matriculation certificate (03 June 1987), but his driving licence—renewed at a later date—showed a different date of birth (05 June 1987). During document verification, this mismatch was treated by the Board as a violation of the recruitment conditions. The Board relied on Clause 22 of the online declaration, which required candidates to certify that all particulars were correct and that any false or inconsistent information would lead to cancellation of candidature and possible legal action. Consequently, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected due to the mismatch.
The writ petitioner argued that his matriculation certificate was the primary proof of age and that the wrong date in his driving licence was a clerical error made by the transport authority during renewal. He also pointed out that the scrutiny officers had permitted him to appear in the driving test, which he successfully cleared on 20 June 2017. He maintained that he was wrongly excluded from the final list without being given any notice or opportunity to rectify the mistake, and that he had subsequently corrected the date of birth in his licence to match his matriculation record.
The Board, on the other hand, argued that the recruitment process was governed by clear instructions and that strict compliance was mandatory. It highlighted that candidates had ample time—between 29 August and 28 September 2016—to ensure consistency in their documents. The Board further emphasized that the advertisement itself contained an explicit warning that any mismatch would lead to disqualification. The final selection list was published on 22 August 2017 with 1,526 selected candidates, and only 51 posts remained vacant because suitable backward class women candidates were unavailable. According to the Board, the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner had signed a declaration accepting that any mismatch would result in cancellation.
The Division Bench examined the relevant clauses in the advertisement and the declaration form. It held that the terms were mandatory in nature, not advisory, and that the petitioner was fully aware of the consequences of any inconsistency in his documents. The Court observed that he had enough time to correct any discrepancy before submitting his application, yet failed to do so. Therefore, his disqualification could not be considered arbitrary or unfair.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Mahendra Singh (Civil Appeal No. 4807 arising out of SLP No. 19886 of 2016, decided on 25 July 2022), where the apex court had emphasized that recruitment rules must be strictly followed and that even minor deviations from eligibility conditions cannot be condoned once the instructions are explicit. Applying this principle, the Division Bench found the Single Judge’s order legally unsustainable and reversed it.
The Court also made an important observation regarding the authenticity of the petitioner’s documents. It found that the petitioner had produced multiple driving licences with inconsistent details. Upon verification, the Court noted that one of the licences appeared to have been issued from outside the competent authority’s jurisdiction and another carried irregular validity dates. The Bench concluded that at least one of the licences was invalid or possibly forged, providing an additional ground to reject the petitioner’s claim.
In summary, the Patna High Court held that when a recruitment advertisement and a candidate’s own declaration clearly state that any discrepancy between the application and supporting documents will result in rejection, the candidate cannot later claim relaxation or condonation. The responsibility to ensure accuracy and consistency of personal information lies entirely with the applicant. Moreover, the presence of forged or irregular documents independently invalidates any claim to appointment.
This judgment serves as an important reminder for both job aspirants and government recruiting bodies.
For job seekers, the decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with eligibility conditions and document verification rules. Even a minor inconsistency in documents, such as a differing date of birth, can result in outright disqualification regardless of performance in later stages. Applicants should carefully cross-check all their certificates, licences, and identity proofs before applying for government jobs, particularly when the advertisement includes strict warning clauses.
For the government and recruitment authorities, the ruling reinforces their authority to enforce eligibility criteria rigidly. When recruitment notifications are unambiguous and candidates are duly cautioned, the courts will not compel appointment on grounds of sympathetic considerations. The decision also stresses the necessity for boards to maintain detailed records of scrutiny proceedings and the reasons for rejection, ensuring transparency and protecting the selection process from judicial interference.
Legal Issues and Court’s Findings
- Whether the Board could cancel a candidature for mismatch in date of birth between application form and driving licence when the advertisement warned of such rejection — The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that strict compliance with recruitment instructions is mandatory.
- Whether the petitioner could rely on post-recruitment rectification of his driving licence to claim appointment — The Court held no, since eligibility and document consistency must be judged on the relevant cut-off date.
- Whether the Single Judge’s direction for appointment could stand when inconsistencies and possible forged licences were present — The Court held that such irregularities rendered the claim untenable and justified dismissal of the writ petition.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Orders dated 13 October 2015 and 27 April 2015 in CWJC No. 13750 of 2015 and CWJC No. 4166 of 2015, respectively, cited to highlight strict adherence to recruitment rules.
Judgments Relied Upon by the Court
- Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4807 (arising out of SLP No. 19886 of 2016), decided on 25 July 2022.
Case Title
Chairman, Central Selection Board of Constable & Anr. v. Aggrieved Person & Ors. (arising from CWJC No. 14087 of 2017).
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1374 of 2018.
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 294
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh.
Date of Judgment: 4 November 2022.
Advocates
For Appellants: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha.
For Writ Petitioner/Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan.
For the State of Bihar: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3.
Link to Judgment
MyMxMzc0IzIwMTgjMSNO-ALQv6g6ogZs=
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.
