Judge Aspirants Get Relief; Supreme Court Sets Aside BPSC's Rejection Of Candidates For Not Producing Original Certificates

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 22) granted relief to three judicial service aspirants from Bihar whose candidatures were rejected by the Bihar Public Service Commission(BPSC) due to non-production of original certificates at the time of interview. 

Holding that production of original certificates was not a mandatory condition, the Court directed that the said candidates be accommodated in service. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan relied on the judgment passed in Aarav Jain versus Bihar Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521 where the Supreme Court had set aside the BPSC's rejection of candidature of eight candidates for not furnishing originals of their certificates. 

The present case related to the 30th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination held in 2018. The candidatures of Sweety Kumari, who had applied under the Scheduled Caste category and Vikramaditya Mishra, who had applied under the unreserved category, were rejected on the ground that they had not produced the originals of the character certificates. The candidature of Aditi, who had applied under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, was rejected on the ground of not furnishing the original of the law degree. They had produced the photocopies of the certificates.

After the Patna High Court denied them relief, they approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants' case is covered by the judgment in Aarav Jain which also pertained to the very same examination (30th judicial service exam held in 2018).

Referring to the provisions of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment), Rules, 1955, the Court held that the production of originals was not a mandatory requirement. Because, Rule 9 of the said Rules only said that the candidate may be required to produce the original before BPSC at the time of viva voce test. 

"The said language makes it clear that the production of the original certificates at the time of interview is not mandatory but directory. This is apparent from the language of second note to Rule 9 which uses the word “may be required to produce the originals before commission at the time of viva-voce test”, the Court observed.

In Aarav Jain also, the Court did not accept the plea taken by BPSC that production of original certificate was mandatory because the candidates possessed such certificates on the date of submission of the application form. Once such a condition is not mandatory, then non-production of original copies at the time of interview would not be sufficient to reject the candidature of a candidate who was placed in the merit, the Court held in Aarav Jain.

Reference was also made to the judgment authored by Justice Krishna Iyer in Charles K. Skaria and Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others (1980) 2 SCC 752 where a distinction was drawn between the factum of eligibility and the proof thereof. It was held that if a person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later. 

"In the present case, the proof is available and true photocopies were on record. The appellants’ candidature could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory, in view of the manner in which the Rules are couched", the Court observed.

The Court noted that all the three appellants have secured more than the cut-off mark prescribed for their respective categories (SC, general and EWS). In Aarav Jain, the Court had directed that the candidates be adjusted in the available vacancies or in the future vacancies. Similar relief was directed to be granted against the present appellants too.

The Court further clarified that the relief is granted in the peculiar facts of the case and that other similar candidates will not get the benefit of the judgment as they have not approached the Court in time.

Case Title : Sweety Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818; 2023INSC853

Click here to read the judgment