Case Background
This writ petition arose from large-scale recruitment of Assistant Professors by the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC). Through Advertisement No. AP-PSYC-16/20-21 dated 21.09.2020, BSUSC invited applications for 4638 posts of Assistant Professor, including 424 posts in Psychology.
The last date for submitting the online application form was 02.11.2020. Hard copies of the application were to be submitted up to 24.11.2020, which was later extended to 30.12.2020.
The petitioner, who applied under the unreserved category for Psychology, submitted her online form on 29.11.2020 and sent the hard copy on 08.12.2020.
Subsequently, BSUSC issued Important Notice No. BSUSC/Adv.-56/2022-1520 dated 24.12.2022. By this notice, the petitioner was declared “provisionally eligible” because of a discrepancy in her father’s name between the domicile and matriculation certificates. Candidates were asked to remove such defects and send objections and documents in PDF via email by 05.01.2023, 5:00 PM.
The petitioner claims that she had teaching experience from Guru Nanak College, supported by an experience certificate dated 20.02.2019. She says this certificate was also countersigned by the Registrar of Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchchal University. However, this countersigned certificate was not part of the documents originally submitted within the application period.
According to her case, being a Covid-19 survivor and facing travel restrictions, she could not submit the countersigned certificate earlier. She later claims to have sent the experience certificate and other documents by email on 23.03.2022 and submitted hard copies on 24.03.2022 and 19.01.2023.
On 19.01.2023, BSUSC issued Notice No. BSUSC/Adv.-56/2022-145. In this, the Commission accepted the petitioner’s domicile certificate but specifically rejected her request to consider the experience certificate for awarding marks.
Despite this, she was shortlisted for interview through notice dated 20.01.2023 and participated in the interview on 27.01.2023. Later, BSUSC published the final merit list for Psychology vide Important Notice No. BSUSC/Vigya.-56/2022 (Khand-11)-475 dated 30.05.2024. The petitioner’s name did not appear in that merit list.
Aggrieved, she approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12893 of 2024. She challenged the merit list to the extent it ignored her experience marks and also assailed the earlier Important Notice dated 24.12.2022 regarding her treatment as provisionally eligible without experience marks.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar. The Court first noted the exact grievance: the petitioner’s teaching experience from Guru Nanak College, though claimed to be supported by a Registrar-countersigned certificate, was not accepted by BSUSC. As a result, she was given zero marks under the “Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience” head in the selection process.
The petitioner sought two main reliefs. First, a direction to accept her experience certificate and recalculate her marks under Clause 7.2(6) of the Advertisement dated 21.09.2020. Second, a consequential direction to consider her for selection in view of her higher aggregate once experience marks were added.
She also challenged the Important Notices of 24.12.2022 and 30.05.2024 to the extent they adversely affected her candidature.
The petitioner’s side argued that she had eventually submitted the correct experience certificate in the required format and duly countersigned by the Registrar. She relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which showed that BSUSC had given her:
• 66 marks for academic score
• 10 marks for research publications
• 12 marks in interview
This gave her a total of 88 marks. She argued that if 10 marks for experience were added, her score would be 98, which exceeded the cut-off of 95 marks for the unreserved category. She submitted that despite this, she was denied selection.
The petitioner further claimed discrimination. According to her, other candidates with missing or defective documents such as caste, EWS, non-creamy layer, Ph.D. or even experience certificates were given extra time to furnish documents, sometimes at the interview stage. She contended that her similar request to regularise the experience certificate was rejected arbitrarily, contrary to Clause 5.1 of the advertisement and lacking transparency. She also pointed to the absence of detailed breakup of marks for shortlisted candidates as a sign of irregularity.
To support her plea, she relied heavily on a Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 109 of 2025 (Anuradha Singh v. Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors.). In that case, the Division Bench had found it unfair to deny teaching experience marks solely because the certificate lacked the Registrar’s countersignature, especially when selection had not progressed far. The petitioner requested similar relief.
She also placed on record a letter dated 13.08.2024 issued by the Public Information Officer, BSUSC, stating that five seats in Psychology were still vacant. She argued that these vacancies could be used to accommodate her candidature once experience marks were allowed.
On the other hand, BSUSC, represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, first questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the entire selection process had been completed, final merit list published, information sent to the Education Department, and appointments ongoing.
The Commission then drew the Court’s attention to key clauses of the advertisement. Clause 5.8 required that all educational certificates and degrees be issued before the closing date for submitting applications, failing which the candidature would be rejected.
Clause 7 laid down a 100-mark scheme for academic performance (covering graduation, post-graduation, Ph.D., NET/JRF, NET, SLET/SET, research publications, teaching/post-doctoral experience and awards), plus 15 marks for interview. Clause 7.2 specifically stated that teaching/post-doctoral experience could carry a maximum of 10 marks at the rate of 2 marks per year, but only if the experience certificate was countersigned by the Registrar of the University.
Clause 15 of the advertisement warned candidates to fill the online application carefully. It clearly stated that any later change or modification would not be accepted, and that the Commission would not be responsible for any error or its consequences. The last date for online application and submission of hard copy (extended to 30.12.2020) was highlighted as a firm cut-off.
BSUSC argued that the petitioner admittedly did not submit any Registrar-countersigned experience certificate along with her application, nor by the final extended date for hard copy submission on 30.12.2020. Therefore, under Clause 7.2, she was rightly awarded “0” marks under Teaching/Post Doctoral experience.
The Commission relied on earlier judicial directions. It cited the judgment dated 12.05.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 5424 of 2022 (Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.), where the Patna High Court had already upheld the requirement of a Registrar-countersigned experience certificate.
Further reliance was placed on Division Bench decisions in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024 (The Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors. v. Amiya Shekhar & Ors.) and L.P.A. No. 698 of 2024 (The Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors. v. Anurag Kumar Sinha & Ors.). In these cases, the Court held that:
• Experience marks could be awarded only on the basis of Registrar-countersigned certificates.
• Submission of such certificates after the last date of application could not be entertained.
BSUSC also invoked the Full Bench decision in Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1998 (3) PLJR 34 (F.B.), where it was held that when an advertisement fixes a last date for filing supporting documents, that date must be strictly followed. Any document received after that date must be rejected even if it reaches before finalisation of the select list.
The Commission relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, which stressed that recruitment rules and timelines in advertisements must be followed strictly and cannot be relaxed unless expressly provided.
The Court examined the record and first accepted the factual position that the petitioner did not submit a Registrar-countersigned experience certificate up to the extended last date of 30.12.2020 for filing hard copies of the application. Her later submissions along with objections pursuant to the 24.12.2022 notice were beyond that cut-off.
The Court clarified that the Important Notice dated 24.12.2022 only dealt with curing specific defects mentioned for each candidate and invited objections regarding errors in eligibility lists. For the petitioner, the only defect listed was the father’s name discrepancy and related domicile issue. That notice did not reopen or extend the time for submitting fresh experience certificates that were never filed within the application period.
The Court also noted that candidates who had failed to submit Non-Creamy Layer certificates or similar reservation-related documents were treated differently: they were declared eligible, but only under the unreserved category. There was no instance on record, however, of any candidate being allowed to submit a fresh Registrar-countersigned experience certificate after the last date and still get experience marks.
The petitioner could not produce the name of any such candidate for comparison. The Court therefore rejected her allegation of discrimination or mala fides.
On the reliance placed by the petitioner on Anuradha Singh’s case, the Court observed that the Division Bench in that matter had itself limited its observations to the particular facts of that case and did not intend to create a general precedent. There, the selection process in the concerned subject had not progressed, unlike in the present case where the process had moved significantly, final merit list was published, and appointments were in progress.
The Court preferred to follow the later and more directly applicable Division Bench decisions in L.P.A. Nos. 653 of 2024 and 698 of 2024. These held that where a candidate failed to submit the requisite experience certificate before the last date and made no attempt to obtain such a certificate in time, delayed claims could not be accepted as they would jeopardise the entire selection process.
The Court also found support in another Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2024 (Dr. Shishu Pal Singh @ Shishu Pal Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.). There, the Division Bench upheld the rejection of a candidate’s claim because the experience certificate was either not in the prescribed format or not countersigned by the Registrar within the stipulated time. The Court reiterated that recruitment schedules and documentary requirements must be strictly observed.
Quoting paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Dr. Shishu Pal Singh judgment, the Court emphasised that selection processes must follow the stipulated procedure and that experience certificates not countersigned by the Registrar before the cut-off date cannot be treated as valid.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not made any attempt to obtain and submit a valid Registrar-countersigned experience certificate before the final cut-off date of 30.12.2020. Her later submissions could not override the clear advertisement conditions and binding precedents.
Accordingly, the Court held that the BSUSC was justified in awarding her zero marks for Teaching/Post Doctoral experience and that there was no legal basis to order recalculation of her marks or disturb the final merit list.
The writ petition was dismissed on merits. No relief was granted regarding the remaining vacant Psychology seats, as the foundational claim itself failed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for all candidates appearing in BSUSC and similar government recruitment processes in Bihar.
The Patna High Court has clearly stated that:
• If the advertisement requires a Registrar-countersigned experience certificate, it must be filed within the last date fixed for applications.
• Later attempts to regularise experience documents, even before interviews or through objections and emails, will not help if the original cut-off date was missed.
• Courts will not treat such lapses as minor technicalities when the recruitment rules and deadlines are clear.
For teaching aspirants, this judgment acts as a strong reminder to ensure that all certificates, especially experience certificates, are in the exact required format and properly countersigned before the last date, and that they are actually submitted along with the application.
It also signals that allegations of discrimination must be supported by clear examples. General statements that “others were given time” are not enough without proof of similarly placed candidates being treated more favourably.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a candidate in BSUSC recruitment claim marks for teaching experience based on a Registrar-countersigned certificate submitted after the final date for filing application documents, relying on later notices inviting objections?
Answer: No. The Court held that where the advertisement fixes a last date and mandates a Registrar-countersigned experience certificate, failure to submit such certificate by the final cut-off bars the candidate from claiming experience marks. Later submissions or objections cannot override the clear terms of the advertisement. - Issue: Did BSUSC act discriminatorily by denying the petitioner experience marks while giving other candidates extra time to cure defects in reservation-related documents?
Answer: No. The Court found no example of any similarly placed candidate being allowed to submit a fresh experience certificate after the cut-off and receive experience marks. Candidates who failed to submit documents like NCL certificates were only shifted to unreserved category, not granted relaxed deadlines for experience. Hence, no discrimination was established. - Issue: Is the Division Bench decision in Anuradha Singh’s case a general precedent allowing relaxation of the Registrar-countersignature requirement where experience is otherwise proved?
Answer: No. The Court held that Anuradha Singh was confined to its own facts and cannot override subsequent or parallel Division Bench rulings that insist on strict adherence to advertisement conditions and cut-off dates.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1998 (3) PLJR 34 (Full Bench)
- Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85
- C.W.J.C. No. 5424 of 2022, Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Patna High Court, judgment dated 12.05.2022)
- L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024, The Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors. v. Amiya Shekhar & Ors.
- L.P.A. No. 698 of 2024, The Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors. v. Anurag Kumar Sinha & Ors. (judgment dated 24.10.2024)
- L.P.A. No. 109 of 2025, Anuradha Singh v. The Bihar State University Service Commission & Ors.
- L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2024, Dr. Shishu Pal Singh @ Shishu Pal Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment dated 24.07.2025)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12893 of 2024
Case Title: Dr. Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 257
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State of Bihar: Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to SC-16
For BSUSC: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging recruitment notices and merit list in Assistant Professor selection conducted by BSUSC.
Date of Judgment: 13.10.2025
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.
