Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Kumar, was selected through the 45th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and appointed to the Bihar Administrative Service (BAS) on 21st March 2005. After serving for almost 15 years, the State Government passed an order on 23rd July 2020 relegating him to the Bihar Education Service, purportedly in compliance with a Supreme Court order dated 23rd October 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015. That order had directed the appointment of Baldeo Choudhary, who had challenged his non-selection, with notional benefits from 29th November 2012. The petitioner was not a party to those proceedings and was not heard before the impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the relegation entailed adverse civil consequences and could not be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Court further clarified that its earlier order only required placing Baldeo Choudhary at the appropriate position in the select list, not a wholesale revision of the merit list. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh after hearing him.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Adverse Civil Consequences - Relegation of a government servant from one service to another without hearing is violative of natural justice - The petitioner, a member of Bihar Administrative Service for 15 years, was relegated to Bihar Education Service without any opportunity of hearing, which entails adverse civil consequences - Held that such an order cannot be sustained without affording a hearing (Paras 13-14).
B) Service Law - Revision of Select List - Scope of Court Order - The Supreme Court's order dated 23.10.2019 only directed appointment of Baldeo Choudhary with notional benefits from 29.11.2012, and did not authorize wholesale revision of the merit list - The Commission's action of revising the entire select list after 15 years and displacing the petitioner was beyond the scope of the court's order - Held that the impugned action was misplaced and not justified (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State could relegate the petitioner from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service without affording him an opportunity of hearing, in alleged compliance of a Supreme Court order that only directed appointment of another candidate with notional benefits.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 23rd July 2020 relegating the petitioner to Bihar Education Service, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh after affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- adverse civil consequences
- hearing requirement
- scope of court order
- revision of select list after long delay
Case Details
2020 LawText (SC) (11) 37
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 798 of 2020
The State of Bihar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the State Government relegating the petitioner from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service without hearing.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 23rd July 2020 relegating him to Bihar Education Service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was relegated from BAS to Bihar Education Service after 15 years of service without being heard, allegedly in compliance of a Supreme Court order.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Patna (Single Judge) on 19th March 2012 held error in evaluation of Baldeo Choudhary's answer script; Division Bench on 29th November 2012 directed his appointment without retrospective effect; Supreme Court on 23rd October 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015 directed his appointment with notional benefits from 29th November 2012.
Issues
Whether the impugned order relegating the petitioner without hearing violates principles of natural justice?
Whether the revision of the select list by the Commission was within the scope of the Supreme Court's order dated 23rd October 2019?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The impugned order was passed without hearing him, violating natural justice; the Supreme Court order only directed appointment of Baldeo Choudhary, not wholesale revision of the merit list.
Respondents: The action was taken in compliance of the Supreme Court order; the petitioner being last in the open category in BAS was rightly relegated.
Ratio Decidendi
An order entailing adverse civil consequences cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and a court order directing appointment of a specific candidate does not authorize wholesale revision of a select list after a long delay.
Judgment Excerpts
We find justification in what being contended by learned counsel for the petitioner to hold that relegating the petitioner to Bihar Education Service after he had rendered 15 years of service as member of the Bihar Administrative Service entail adverse civil consequences and indeed the order impugned dated 23rd July, 2020 could not have been passed by the respondents without affording him an opportunity of hearing and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The defence which has been tendered by the respondents in their counter affidavit that impugned action has been taken in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 2019 which in our view is completely misplaced...
Procedural History
The petitioner was selected in 2005 and appointed to BAS. Baldeo Choudhary challenged his non-selection in 2008. The High Court (Single Judge) on 19.03.2012 found error in evaluation. The Division Bench on 29.11.2012 directed appointment without retrospective effect. The Supreme Court on 23.10.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015 directed appointment with notional benefits from 29.11.2012. The Commission revised the select list on 04.05.2020, and the State relegated the petitioner on 23.07.2020. The petitioner filed the present writ petition.
