Patna High Court upholds dismissal of head clerk’s appeal, emphasises legal compliance in recruitment [Read Judgment]

Patna: A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justices P. B. Bajanthri and B. PD. Singh, has delivered a significant judgment, holding that a candidate’s appointment is invalid if it is not made in accordance with the law, regardless of the number of years of service rendered.

Patna High Court: Appointments Invalid Without Legal Compliance, Service Years Irrelevant

The court specifically observed that if a candidate’s appointment is contrary to legal provisions, the duration of service performed in the position becomes irrelevant. The Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge, which denied relief to the Appellant (Head Clerk), who had been appointed to the post despite not being on the merit list at the time of appointment.

Recruitment Row: Court Upholds Dismissal of Head Clerk’s Appeal Over Merit List Violation

The case involved Amit Shrivastava, a candidate for recruitment to the post of Head Clerk in the Nagar Panchayat of Mehasi, East Champaran. The recruitment advertisement, dated 19.05.2012, specified that candidates would be shortlisted in a 1:10 ratio for a single Head Clerk position. Shrivastava, ranked 11th, was technically outside the zone of consideration.

Despite being appointed and serving as Head Clerk for approximately five years, Shrivastava’s appointment was challenged by another candidate, Saurabh Kumar. The Single Judge allowed the challenge on 23.11.2017, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench.

The court emphasized that the question of preference for candidates with prior departmental experience arises only when they fall within the zone of consideration for interviews. The Bench referenced a Supreme Court precedent in the case of M.S. Patil (Dr.) v. Gulbarga University, where even a candidate with 17½ years of service was found to have been appointed contrary to the law.

The court rejected the appellant’s plea for equity, asserting that when a selection and appointment process violates legal principles, the candidate is not entitled to equitable relief.

Advocates Abhinav Srivastava (for the Appellant), Yogendra Pd. Sinha (for the State), Sanjay Kumar (for Nagar Panchayat), and Prince Kumar Mishra (for Respondent No. 5) represented the parties during the proceedings.

Case title: Amit Shrivastava vs State of Bihar and Others

This version clarifies a few sentences, adjusts phrasing for consistency, and ensures smooth readability. Let me know if you need further tweaks.

[Read Judgment]