PATNA, India, Nov. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Nov. 3:
Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. This batch of writ petitions relate to appointment of Clerks in different District Courts of the State of Bihar. The subject Advertisement No.01/2016 was issued by the Convenor, Co-ordination Committee, Patna-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Patna inviting applications for direct recruitment against 1681 posts of Clerk in Civil Court of Bihar, including 841 unreserved posts. The petitioners having due eligibility, applied for the afore-noted post under different categories and declared successful in the preliminary as well as mains written examination. On being found successful, they were asked to appear in the interview and finally on 26.09.2018, a panel of 6841 candidates was published, based upon their merit as per the total marks obtained by them in the written examination and the interview.
3. Finally, after completing all paraphernalia, a list of 1681 selected candidates in the order of merit as per the roster reservation for appointment on the post of Clerk in the Subordinate Courts of Bihar along with the place of posting was published vide notice dated 26.09.2018.
4. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were not among the selected appointees; they also came to know that in terms of Rule 7, Sub-rule 14 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & IV) Rules, 2009 (for brevity ' Rules, 2009'), the panel was to be prepared in the order of merit against the existing vacancies as also the anticipated vacancies occurring within the aforementioned period and in that view of the matter, the result published by the Convenor, Co-ordination Committee, Patna dated 26.09.2018 is claimed to be totally illegal; hence, the petitioners, inter alia, on the afore-noted grounds, challenged the selected list of 1681 candidates on the ground of the same being prepared in violation of Rules, 2009.
5. The result was also questioned on various other grounds as has been raised in this batch of writ petitions; in the meanwhile, some of the identically situated candidates have also approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. Nos. 21219 of 2018 and 6259 of 2019, but unsuccessfully. The petitioners of the said cases, preferred L.P.A. Nos. 650 of 2022, 661 of 2022 and 657 of 2022. The learned Division Bench after proper consideration of the matter, pleased to allow these appeals vide order(s)/judgment(s) dated 19.04.2023, directing the respondents to consider the case of each of the appellants for appointment on the post of Clerk against unfilled and anticipated vacancies, arose during the relevant period of two years and to issue necessary orders for appointment of each of the eligible appellants and in case any of the candidate is not eligible/suitable, in that event, necessary speaking order shall be passed and communicated to them. For ready reference and proper appreciation, paragraphs-19 and 20 of the order(s)/judgment(s) passed by the learned Division Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"19. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated that statutory rule will prevail over the executive instruction/decision. Further it is to be noted that the opinion expressed by the committee is to be upheld in such an event the proper course for the concerned competent authority is to take appropriate steps to amend Sub-rule 12, 13 and 14 of Rule 7 of Rules, 2009. In the absence of amendment to Rules, 2009 that too with retrospective effect, i.e., prior to 07.02.2016 the date on which Clerk post was notified. Executive decision cannot override statutory rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTMzNyMyMDE5IzEjTg==-3lWntHG90Ck=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
