Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, presided by Justice Partha Sarthy, dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police under the long-concluded Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, holding that the claim was barred by delay and hit by the principle of finality in litigation.
The Court observed that once the selection process was concluded long ago and the Supreme Court had expressly restrained reopening of the 2004 recruitment process, no further relief could be granted. The Bench reiterated:
“A stale claim relating to a recruitment process concluded nearly two decades ago cannot be reopened in disregard of binding judicial orders. Finality of litigation is a foundational aspect of rule of law.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner failed to produce timely and valid documentation and had not rebutted the Bihar Staff Selection Commission’s assertion regarding non-submission of the required certificate.
Facts
The case stemmed from Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police. The petitioner applied under the Backward Class (OBC) category, successfully cleared the physical test, and submitted his Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet along with supporting documents.
However, due to the unavailability of a creamy layer certificate from the District Magistrate, the petitioner submitted one issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Samastipur, which was accepted at the time of submission. He was issued an admit card and appeared for the written examination.
When the results were published on 30 May 2008, and later republished on 1 February 2009, the petitioner’s roll number was missing. He claimed to have scored 227.24 marks, higher than the cut-off for his category (223.26), and alleged that he had been wrongly excluded.
Following similar petitions filed by other candidates, the matter reached the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which, in LPA No. 416 of 2009, directed the Commission to accommodate candidates who produced proper certificates countersigned by the District Magistrate.
The petitioner argued that he was entitled to the same relief since his non-selection arose from the same advertisement and factual circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 despite non-submission of a valid creamy layer certificate within the stipulated time.
- Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition seeking revival of a two-decade-old recruitment process.
- Whether earlier orders of the Supreme Court barred reconsideration of claims arising from the 2004 selection.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had complied with all procedural requirements, successfully passed the physical and written examinations, and submitted all documents as per the Commission’s directions. The only reason for his exclusion, he argued, was the lack of countersignature on his creamy layer certificate, which was subsequently obtained from the District Magistrate on 22 July 2010.
He asserted that other similarly placed candidates were granted appointment pursuant to the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 416 of 2009, which directed that candidates who had produced caste and creamy layer certificates from the SDO should be permitted to rectify them through countersignature by the District Magistrate.
Relying on this precedent, he prayed for a direction to the Commission to recommend his name for appointment and to the State to issue an appointment order treating him as an OBC candidate.
He further relied on a subsequent Patna High Court order dated 20 August 2025 in CWJC No. 2372 of 2023, where directions were issued to appoint 186 petitioners under the same advertisement if they were found medically fit, arguing that he deserved parity of treatment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission opposed the writ, arguing that the petitioner had failed to submit a valid creamy layer certificate issued or countersigned by the District Magistrate at the relevant time. Therefore, his candidature was not considered under the reserved category.
The respondents placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s order dated 14 September 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2795–2797 of 2017, wherein the Apex Court barred any further impleadment, reopening, or review in matters relating to the 2004 Sub-Inspector recruitment, except with explicit permission of the Court.
Further, reference was made to the order dated 1 November 2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1711 of 2018, where the Supreme Court observed that aggrieved applicants could only appeal to the conscience of the State Government, and if their representations were rejected, no legal proceedings could follow.
Hence, the respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable, being a stale claim that had already been adjudicated multiple times and foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s directions.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the matter in light of Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the limits of writ jurisdiction when the issue has attained finality. It observed that the High Court cannot reopen matters already concluded by the Apex Court, particularly where directions explicitly prohibit further litigation.
Referring to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court presumed regularity in official acts of the Commission and noted that the petitioner’s omission in submitting a valid certificate within the stipulated period disqualified him under the reserved category.
The Bench also reiterated that administrative finality and judicial discipline are integral to the recruitment process, and entertaining petitions after long intervals would undermine fairness, certainty, and the integrity of public service selection.
Precedent Analysis
- LPA No. 416 of 2009 (Patna High Court) – Held that candidates should be given an opportunity to produce valid certificates duly issued or countersigned by the District Magistrate. The present case distinguished it since the petitioner failed to comply within time.
- Civil Appeal Nos. 2795–2797 of 2017 (Supreme Court) – The Apex Court categorically directed that no further petitions regarding the 2004 Sub-Inspector recruitment would be entertained. The High Court followed this to hold the claim barred.
- Contempt Petition (C) No. 1711 of 2018 (Supreme Court) – Allowed representations to the State Government but precluded judicial re-litigation. Cited to deny maintainability of the petition.
- CWJC No. 12804 of 2019 (Patna High Court, decided on 23 February 2021) – Dismissed similar petitions as stale, reaffirming that the recruitment process of 2004 was conclusively closed.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Partha Sarthy, after reviewing the pleadings and counter-affidavit, found that:
- The petitioner had failed to produce a valid creamy layer certificate within the selection period.
- The certificate was issued only in July 2010, long after the recruitment process ended.
- The counter affidavit filed by the Commission clearly stated that the petitioner’s candidature was not considered for want of proper certification — a fact never rebutted by the petitioner.
Further, the Court noted that identical matters had been dismissed by coordinate Benches following Supreme Court directions, including CWJC No. 12804 of 2019, where the Court held that no further appointment orders could be issued under the 2004 advertisement.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim was stale, barred by limitation, and hit by judicial finality.
“When the Apex Court has sealed the matter, reopening recruitment after twenty years would not only defy judicial hierarchy but also jeopardize administrative stability.”
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the claim for appointment under the 2004 advertisement was untenable, as the petitioner failed to fulfill documentary requirements within the stipulated time and the recruitment process stood conclusively closed.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle of finality in administrative matters and warned against revival of stale claims, observing that allowing such petitions would undermine the sanctity of judicial orders and the discipline of public recruitment systems.
“Judicial sympathy cannot override binding directions of the Supreme Court. Fairness in governance requires closure as much as justice requires consideration.”
Implications
This ruling underscores the need for timely compliance with recruitment procedures and reaffirms that litigation cannot be perpetually reopened after the selection process has concluded. It serves as a reminder that judicial orders of the Supreme Court are final and binding, leaving no room for reconsideration by subordinate courts.
The judgment also strengthens the jurisprudence on stale claims, ensuring administrative efficiency and integrity of public recruitment systems.
FAQs
1. Can a candidate claim appointment after 20 years of recruitment?
No. Once the recruitment process concludes and has been upheld by courts, such claims are treated as stale and non-maintainable.
2. Is submission of a valid creamy layer certificate mandatory in reserved category selections?
Yes. Non-submission or delayed submission of a valid certificate renders the candidate ineligible for consideration under the reserved quota.
3. Can High Courts reopen matters closed by the Supreme Court?
No. High Courts are bound by Supreme Court orders and cannot entertain petitions contrary to such directives.
