Case Background
The Bihar Government created the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission under the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission Act, 2016. The Commission was empowered to conduct combined competitive examinations for Group “C” posts in the Home (Police) Department and certain other departments.
On 21.08.2019, the Commission issued Advertisement No. 1/2019. It invited applications for 2446 posts: 2064 posts of Police Sub-Inspector, 215 posts of Sergeant, 125 posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), and 42 posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen).
The selection process was designed in stages. First, a Preliminary Examination was to be held. From this, candidates twenty times the number of vacancies were to be shortlisted for the Mains Examination. After the Mains, candidates six times the vacancy were to be called for the Physical Evaluation Test (PET) for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant and Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). For Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen), there was no PET; only the Preliminary and Mains examinations were required.
The petitioners in both writ petitions applied under Advertisement No. 1/2019. They were issued admit cards, appeared in the Preliminary Examination held on 22.12.2019 and were declared successful. The result dated 28.01.2020 is on record as Annexure-4 series.
They then appeared in the Combined Mains Examination. On 16.01.2021, the result was published. Altogether 15,231 candidates were declared successful for PET for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant and Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). For these posts, the cut-off for General Category (Male) at that stage was shown as 75.8%. The petitioners claim to have secured marks above this figure.
The PET was conducted between 22.03.2021 and 12.04.2021. After completion of PET and other checks, the Commission published the final merit list on 17.06.2021 on its website, with category-wise cut off marks. Appointment letters were thereafter issued to successful candidates.
The names of the petitioners did not appear in the final list. They felt aggrieved particularly because, according to them, the General Category (Male) cut-off was finally shown as 75% instead of 75.8%, and yet they were not selected despite claiming higher marks than some appointed candidates.
Earlier, some of these petitioners had approached the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13689 of 2021. That petition was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, with liberty to file afresh. The present writ petitions (C.W.J.C. No. 3435 of 2022 and C.W.J.C. No. 4769 of 2022) were then filed, this time arraying selected candidates in a representative capacity.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners mounted a broad challenge. They attacked the entire selection and appointment process under Advertisement No. 1/2019, as well as specific steps and outcomes.
First, they argued that the Commission did not follow Rule 654(d) and Rule 655(d) of the Bihar Police Manual, as amended by notification dated 31.08.2017 issued under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with Sections 55 and 97 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007. According to them, after Mains and PET, a combined competitive result had to be published service-cadre wise, in a consolidated integrated manner, and also reserved category wise, strictly in order of merit. They alleged that recommendations and appointment letters (Annexures 12, 13 and 14) were issued in complete disregard of those prescriptions.
Second, they claimed that though the cut-off for General Category (Male) was announced as 75.8% at the Mains stage, it was “arbitrarily” reduced to 75% in the final merit list after PET. They alleged that this change was designed to favour “undeserving” candidates and amounted to changing the “rules of the game” after the process had started. They also alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Third, they complained of lack of transparency. They said they had sought their OMR answer sheets, total marks, and answer keys under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but were told that answer book “auction” was in process and no information would be supplied. They argued that keeping answer keys secret and not disclosing evaluation details undermined their “right to know”, which is part of Article 19(1)(a).
To support these points, they relied on decisions such as:
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (AIR 2010 Delhi 159); Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay ((2011) 8 SCC 497); Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta ((1983) 4 SCC 309); Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court ((2025) 2 SCC 1); Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan ((2011) 12 SCC 85); State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar ((2010) 13 SCC 467); and Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 280).
On this basis, they asked the Court: to set aside the entire selection and appointments; to declare the process non-transparent, unreasonable and contrary to the advertisement and rules; to direct production of question booklets, OMR sheets and answer keys; and to declare them successful and appoint them as per their alleged merit.
The Commission, represented by a Senior Advocate, placed detailed figures and explanations on record.
It stated that about 6,15,000 candidates applied; 5,85,829 appeared in the Preliminary Examination; 4,75,416 were shortlisted for Mains (20 times the vacancies as per the advertisement); and 15,231 were then selected from the Mains for PET for the posts of Sub-Inspector, Sergeant and Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). For the Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen) posts, 453 candidates cleared the Mains. On 08.03.2021, the Commission published their final result and recommended 40 candidates against 42 posts, along with category-wise cut-offs.
After PET and verification, the Commission recommended 2062 candidates for Police Sub-Inspector, 215 for Sergeant and 125 for Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). It emphasized that for all stages, category-wise cut-off marks were published.
In response to the grievance that candidates who had “cut-off marks” but were not selected did not understand why, the Commission said it had uploaded marks of all candidates on its website on 30.07.2021, with an active link from 01.08.2021 to 15.08.2021 (Annexure-E). Candidates were directed to download their mark-sheets within that period.
Further, on 12.08.2021, the Commission issued a public notice clarifying that in many mark-sheets a remark appeared such as “not selected for the post of PSI, ASJ, unfit for the post of Sergeant”. This meant that such candidates had lower marks than those finally selected for Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent Jail, and they had also failed the PET for Sergeant. Thus, even if a person had marks at or above an earlier cut-off for some category, he or she could still be outside the range of final selectees in view of performance in PET and overall ranking.
The Commission strongly denied that any rule of the game was changed or that cut-off was arbitrarily lowered. It explained that although 15,231 candidates (plus 357 ex-servicemen) were called for PET, only 6670 candidates ultimately qualified in PET in all respects, including document verification. Many more meritorious candidates, who had higher written marks, were disqualified at PET. As a result, when the final merit list was prepared limited to the number of advertised posts, the effective cut-off for final selection, based on those who had actually passed all stages, changed and was rounded off.
The Commission also produced charts comparing the petitioners’ overall ranks with those of the last selected candidates, as well as with some private respondents who were selected in a representative capacity. Those charts showed that the petitioners’ overall ranks were far below the last selected rank for Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent Jail, and that some petitioners had also failed in PET for Sergeant. It was specifically asserted on oath that the petitioners did not have higher marks than the selected candidates they had impleaded.
On the allegation regarding RTI, the Commission stated that it has been providing OMR sheets, question papers and other relevant information to candidates who seek them under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The State adopted the stand of the Commission.
Justice Harish Kumar then examined both facts and law. He began by recalling the settled principle: a candidate who participates in a recruitment process without objection, and only after being unsuccessful challenges the procedure, is normally not allowed to do so.
He relied on Supreme Court judgments including Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla ((2002) 6 SCC 127), Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar ((2007) 8 SCC 100), Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam ((2009) 3 SCC 227), and Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar ((2010) 12 SCC 576). These decisions hold that once a candidate accepts the terms, writes the exam, and only after failing raises objections, courts are slow to entertain such challenges.
The Court accepted that selection must follow the terms of the advertisement and rules, and that “rules of the game” cannot be changed midway, citing Bedanga Talukdar and the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak. However, applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that there was no change in eligibility criteria or selection procedure after the process began.
According to the Court, the petitioners sat for the Preliminary and Mains examinations, cleared both, and then appeared in PET without any protest against either the advertisement or procedure. Only when they did not figure in the final list did they come to court.
On the transparency issue and answer keys, the Court held that Aditya Bandopadhyay itself recognizes RTI as the avenue for seeking answer books, and the Commission had admitted that it supplies OMR sheets and related materials under the RTI Act. Therefore, the complaint that non-uploading of answer keys alone made the process illegal could not be accepted, especially when the Supreme Court has not mandated online publication of all answer keys in every recruitment.
Most crucially, the Court accepted the Commission’s explanation for the change in effective cut-off marks. Because many higher-scoring candidates were eliminated at the PET stage and document verification, the final pool of eligible candidates changed. The Court held that rounding off the final cut-off from 75.8% to 75% in such circumstances was not arbitrary, did not amount to tinkering with eligibility criteria, and caused no prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners could not show that, after taking into account PET and overall merit, they were above the last selected candidate.
The Court found that the petitioners had failed to produce any material showing that they had secured higher marks than the private respondents or the last selected candidates. From the comparative charts, it was “explicit” that the petitioners’ overall ranks were “much below” the rank of the last selected candidates for Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent Jail. Candidates who failed in PET for Sergeant were also rightly not selected, even if they had more written marks than an earlier cut-off.
The Court also noted that a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission v. Ramesh Kumar (2019 (2) PLJR 416) had previously held that unsuccessful candidates cannot, after the fact, challenge the selection procedure on allegations of unfairness without relevant material. That view was consistent with Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2017) 4 SCC 357).
In this backdrop, the Court concluded that no illegality, irregularity or lapse in the selection process had been shown which would justify interference. The entire challenge to Advertisement No. 1/2019, to the conduct of examinations, to the cut-off marks and to the appointments was rejected.
Both writ petitions were dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. All pending applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for thousands of candidates who appear in large police recruitments in Bihar.
First, the Patna High Court has made it clear that once a candidate participates in an examination process, including PET, without raising timely objections, he or she cannot later challenge the rules or procedure simply because the final result is unfavourable.
Second, the Court has accepted that final cut-off marks may change at the last stage because of failures in physical tests or document verification. What matters is the merit among those who actually clear all stages, not just written marks at an earlier phase.
Third, the Court has signalled that broad allegations of irregularities and lack of transparency will not succeed unless supported by concrete evidence showing that rules were violated or that a particular candidate was wrongly pushed below someone less meritorious.
For candidates, this means: keep track of your marks, PET performance and RTI rights, but understand that courts will not easily cancel entire recruitment processes without very specific proof of illegality.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Did the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission violate the advertisement, rules or “rules of the game” by changing cut-off marks and conducting the selection in a non-transparent, arbitrary manner?
Answer: No. The Court held that the Commission followed the advertisement and applicable rules, applied PET and document verification uniformly, and any change in effective cut-off resulted naturally from PET failures and overall ranking, not from arbitrary alteration of criteria. -
Issue: Were the petitioners, who claimed higher marks than the published cut-off, entitled to appointment or to have the entire selection and appointments set aside?
Answer: No. The Court found that the petitioners’ overall ranks were below the last selected candidates, some had failed PET, and they could not demonstrate that they had higher merit than those appointed. Hence, no right to appointment or basis to cancel the selection was made out. -
Issue: Did non-publication of answer keys and alleged non-supply of OMR sheets under RTI make the selection process illegal or void?
Answer: No. The Court accepted the Commission’s statement that OMR sheets and other information were supplied under the RTI Act, and held that candidates can use RTI for such purposes. This did not vitiate the recruitment.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Others v. Shakuntala Shukla and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 127
- Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 100
- Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 227
- Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576
- Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 85
- Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1
- Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497
- Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 309
- Goa Public Service Commission v. Pankaj Rane and Others, (2022) 11 SCC 742
- Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission v. Ramesh Kumar and Others, 2019 (2) PLJR 416
- Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357
- Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Delhi 159
- State of Bihar and Others v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467
- Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280
Case Details
Case Numbers:
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3435 of 2022
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4769 of 2022
Case Title:
CWJC No. 3435 of 2022: Sudhir Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
CWJC No. 4769 of 2022: Ravish Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation:
2025 (2) PLJR 498
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Advocates:
For the petitioners (both cases): Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate
For the State (both cases): Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
For the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission (CWJC No. 3435 of 2022): Mr. P. K. Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Aniket Singh, Advocate
For the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission (CWJC No. 4769 of 2022): Mr. P. K. Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
Natures of the Cases:
Writ petitions (Civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recruitment and appointments under Advertisement No. 1/2019 issued by the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission.
Date of Judgment:
25.03.2025
Link to Judgment:
Full text of judgment on the website of 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.
