Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for Class III posts in the State of Bihar, where the Bihar State Selection Service Board advertised 1005 posts. Candidates applied for these positions, which required a minimum educational qualification of graduation. The selection process faced scrutiny as the High Court noted that no merit list was prepared, and appointments were made arbitrarily, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was asked to determine the legality of the High Court's findings. The appellant's counsel failed to provide a merit list to substantiate the claims made in the affidavit. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the absence of a merit list rendered the selection process arbitrary. It highlighted that the normal procedure requires a merit list to be prepared and candidates to be appointed based on their qualifications and merit. The Court found that the Government's failure to follow this procedure constituted an arbitrary exercise of power. Although the High Court suggested that options should be called for, the Supreme Court clarified that this was not mandatory and that candidates did not have an absolute right to selection based on their options. The Court directed the Government to follow a rational method for allotting candidates to departments, applicable only to pending cases. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Violation - Arbitrary Selection - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The High Court found that no merit list was prepared for the selection of candidates, leading to arbitrary appointments, violating the principle of equality. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the necessity of merit-based selection and the illegality of arbitrary appointments (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the view taken by the High Court regarding the absence of a merit list and the arbitrary selection of candidates was correct in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the absence of a merit list constituted an arbitrary selection process, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Government to follow a rational method for allotting candidates to departments, applicable only to pending cases.
Law Points
- Article 14 of the Constitution
- arbitrary exercise of power
- merit list preparation
- selection criteria
- appointment validity
