Patna High Court rejects Sub-Inspector aspirants’ plea, ruling no parity with candidates appointed under Article 142 despite higher marks, stressing delay, laches, and case-specific judicial discretion.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court’s judgment dated August 20, 2025, is a strong illustration of the complex interplay between constitutional equality, judicial discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution, and the doctrine of delay and laches.
The petitioners, aspirants for the post of Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC), sought parity with 133 candidates appointed in 2017 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142.
Background of the Case
Under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission had invited applications for 1510 posts of Sub-Inspector. The selection process included physical tests conducted in 2006, followed by the written examination in 2008, the results of which were later published.
However, the recruitment became involved in controversy due to errors in the model question papers, leading to several writ petitions. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which, on different occasions between 2011 and 2017, passed directions to protect the interests of aggrieved candidates. In particular, by its order dated September 14, 2017, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed that 133 candidates, who had qualified in the physical test, be appointed after undergoing medical examinations.
The petitioners in the present case claimed that they had secured higher marks than those of 133 candidates and yet were excluded from appointment.
They invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, contending that the right to equality in matters of public employment required that they, too, be appointed. In support of this claim, they relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Ahswani Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1997 SC 1628), where it was held that all persons similarly situated must be treated alike, whether or not they had approached the Court directly.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the petitioners, who had higher marks than the 133 appointed candidates, are entitled to appointment?
- Whether the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142 (for 133 candidates) can form a precedent for others?
- Whether delay and laches (given that the process began in 2004) bar the petitioners’ claims?
- Whether the continuation of appointments under Advertisement No. 704 (even till 2023–24) keeps the recruitment process open for such claims?
Arguments before the Court
Petitioners’ Stand:
The petitioners asserted that,
“Appointment of a person with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured higher marks is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
They argued that, as appointments were still being made in 2023–24 under the same advertisement (cases of Dinesh Kumar and Mala), the process could not be said to have been closed. Non-consideration of their representation, they contended, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
State’s Stand:
The State responded that the 133 appointments were unique, based on the Supreme Court’s plenary powers under Article 142, and therefore could not serve as precedent for others. It is submitted that “the appointments of 133 candidates cannot be made precedent”, pointing out that several similar writs and LPAs had already been dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and closure of process. Reopening claims would amount to reviving a recruitment process that started over two decades ago.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the petitioners had indeed secured higher marks than the 133 candidates who were ultimately appointed. However, it stressed that the 133 appointments were not on merit, but rather flowed from a special direction of the Supreme Court under Article 142, making them an exception rather than a rule.
The Court further clarified that the Supreme Court’s order was case-specific and therefore could not be treated as a binding precedent to extend similar benefits to other candidates who had not approached the Court at the relevant time.
Addressing the issue of timeliness, the Court underlined that the recruitment process dated back to 2004, and several writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals raising identical claims had already been dismissed. It emphasized that Courts cannot perpetually keep recruitment open, as doing so would undermine finality in administrative processes.
Finally, while acknowledging that some appointments under the same advertisement had been made even in 2023 and 2024, the Court explained that those appointments arose from specific court directions in other cases, and such directions could not be taken to mean that the entire recruitment process stood revived for all aspirants.
Judgment:
The Patna High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that:
- The petitioners cannot claim parity with the 133 candidates appointed under Article 142.
- Delay and laches bar such belated claims.
- Equality under Articles 14 & 16 cannot be stretched to cover judicially carved exceptions.
Case Title:
Santosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
CWJC 2372/2023
Read Judgment:
