On Tuesday, July 16, the Supreme Court granted relief to a candidate who had been excluded from the merit list by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) despite meeting the minimum marks criteria stipulated in the job advertisement.
The candidate had applied for the position of City Manager under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar. This position is governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, established under Article 309 of the Indian Constitution.
The BSSC, responsible for the recruitment process, had set a minimum qualifying mark of 32% for the written exam. Although the candidate scored 22.575 out of 70, equating to 32.14%, she was not included in the merit list to be eligible for counseling.
The candidate filed a writ petition against the BSSC, which was upheld by both the Single and Division Benches of the High Court. Unhappy with this decision, the BSSC appealed to the Supreme Court.
During trial
The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale. They upheld the High Court’s findings, noting that the BSSC had violated the 2014 statutory rules. This was by not considering the candidate’s eligibility for counseling. She had despite met the minimum marks requirement.
The BSSC had also denied her candidature based on her zero work experience. She scored 0 out of 30 in the experience category. She had considered her total marks (22.575 out of 100) for the merit list.
Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court stated, “A candidate with just the qualifying 32% marks in the written exam (22.5 out of 70) without experience will be at the bottom of the merit list but remains eligible for appointment if the merit list includes scores as low as 22.5 out of 100.”
The Court clarified that the final merit list would still consider marks for work experience. “Respondent No. 1 scored 22.5 out of 70 is 32.14%, above the minimum qualifying mark of 32% as per advertisement. Therefore, denying her a place on the merit list was incorrect. The impugned judgment requires no interference,” the Court ruled.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
