The appeals challenge the validity of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court, which pertains to the selection and appointment process for the post of City Manager under the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The issue revolves around the interpretation of the minimum qualifying marks required in the written test and the consideration of work experience in the merit list preparation. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the minimum qualifying marks pertain only to the written test and not the total marks including experience. The appellants' reliance on an earlier executive order was dismissed as irrelevant. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming the respondent's eligibility based on her written test scores.
The appeals challenge the judgment dated 20 December 2022 by the Patna High Court, dismissing both appeals and refusing to interfere with the Single Judge's order dated 15.10.2020.
The issue pertains to the selection and appointment to the post of City Manager under the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Relevant rules include Rule 5 (Process of Recruitment, appointment, and procedure of Recruitment) and Rule 11 (Residual matters).
An advertisement dated 15.11.2016 was issued for 152 City Manager posts, outlining vacancies, eligibility, criteria, and selection procedures.
The merit list is prepared based on written examination and experience, with 70 marks for the written exam and up to 30 marks for experience.
Minimum qualifying marks for the written test are:
Respondent No. 1, with no prior work experience, scored 22.575 marks out of 70 in the written examination but was declared unsuccessful for not meeting the minimum qualifying marks of 32% overall.
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7051/2020) for issuance of appropriate directions for her appointment, arguing that she met the qualifying marks for the written test.
The Single Judge ruled that the minimum qualifying marks pertain only to the written test, and candidates meeting these marks should be considered for merit list preparation.
Appellants and other candidates filed L.P.A. Nos. 412 and 109 of 2021 against the Single Judge's judgment.
The appellants relied on an Executive Order dated 16.07.2007, which was dismissed as irrelevant by the Division Bench.
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's judgment, stating that the Executive Order of 2007 could not supplant the Rules of 2014.
Appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2022.
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment justified, confirming the respondent's eligibility based on written test scores.
A candidate scoring 32% in the written test is eligible to be placed in the consideration zone, with the merit list considering experience marks.
Minimum qualifying marks are concerned only with the written test, not the total 100 marks, as evident from the Rules and advertisement.
The merit list was prepared according to Rule 5, read with Rule 11 of Rules 2014, without mentioning any minimum qualifying marks out of 100.
The appellants' argument that ambiguities in Rules 2014 can be clarified by an Executive Order was dismissed as irrelevant.
The case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 392 was cited, confirming the primacy of statutory regulations over executive decisions.
Respondent No. 1 scored 22.5 marks out of 70 (32.14%), qualifying her for the merit list.
The appeals are dismissed, and the High Court's judgment is upheld.
Case Title: BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. VERSUS HIMAL KUMARI & ANR. ETC.
Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (7) 161
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.9656-9657 of 2023)
Date of Decision: 2024-07-16
