Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by candidates seeking appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Bihar. The petitioners claimed parity with 133 candidates who were appointed without undergoing the physical test pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 142. The background involves a long history of litigation regarding the selection process for Sub-Inspector posts initiated by Advertisement No.704 of 2004. The Supreme Court, in earlier proceedings, had directed a fresh selection for 299 posts and permitted certain candidates to appear. Subsequently, the Court passed an order on 14.09.2017 directing that 133 candidates be appointed without physical test, stating that the order shall not be treated as a precedent. The petitioners, who either failed or did not appear in the physical test, argued that they were similarly situated to the 133 candidates and sought similar treatment. The State of Bihar opposed the petitions, contending that the benefit to the 133 candidates was a special exception under Article 142 and not a precedent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners have no legal right to claim parity as the order in favour of the 133 candidates was not a precedent and was passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the petitioners either failed or did not participate in the physical test, and therefore, they cannot be equated with the 133 candidates who were exempted by a specific direction of the Court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Exercise of Power - The Supreme Court, while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that 133 candidates be appointed without undergoing physical test, specifically stating that the order shall not be treated as a precedent. The Court held that such a direction was in the peculiar facts of the case and cannot be claimed by other candidates as a matter of right. (Paras 9-10) B) Service Law - Selection Process - Physical Test - The petitioners, who either failed or did not appear in the physical test conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.511/2011, cannot claim parity with 133 candidates who were exempted from the physical test by a special order of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the exception carved out for 133 candidates was not a precedent and cannot be extended to others. (Paras 3, 12) C) Service Law - Parity - Mandamus - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them in parity with 133 candidates. The Court held that no mandamus can be issued as the petitioners have no legal right to claim such parity, especially when the order in favour of 133 candidates was passed under Article 142 and was not intended to be a precedent. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who either failed or did not appear in the physical test for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, are entitled to appointment in parity with 133 candidates who were appointed without undergoing the physical test by virtue of an order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to claim parity with the 133 candidates as the order in their favour was passed under Article 142 and was not intended to be a precedent. The petitioners either failed or did not participate in the physical test and have no legal right to appointment.
Law Points
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- Doctrine of Precedent
- Parity in Selection Process
- Physical Test Requirement
