Patna High Court
Satyendra Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that a selection process initiated in 2010 cannot be continued indefinitely and the State is not obligated to fill the vacancies through that stale process, thus no writ of mandamus can be issued and the petition must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, five individuals, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its education authorities to fill several vacant posts through a selection process that was initiated in 2010. The respondents argued that the selection process had been pending for more than twelve years, rendering many candidates over‑aged and violating the rights of prospective applicants, thereby constituting reverse discrimination. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Samrendra Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar (CWJC No.12436 of 2019), which held that a selection process should not be allowed to continue beyond a reasonable period, typically three years, and that the State may lawfully conduct a fresh recruitment. The Court also relied on the principles laid down in Shankarsan Das v. Union of India (1991 (3) SCC 47) and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that a notification is merely an invitation and does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, giving quietus to the stale selection process and refusing to issue a writ of mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State to fill vacancies based on a selection process initiated in 2010.
- Whether continuation of a recruitment process for an extended period violates the rights of prospective candidates and amounts to reverse discrimination.
- Whether the State has a legal duty to fill the vacancies when the selection process is stale.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- selection process
- vacancy
- reverse discrimination
- administrative law
- recruitment
- quietus
- public employment
- constitutional law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11513 of 2019
======================================================
1. Satyendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Braj Nandan Prasad Singh Resident of
Village- Gaura, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran.
2. Dhruv Narayan Singh Son of Baliram Singh Resident of Village Gaura, P.S.-
Marhowrah, District- Saran.
3. Suresh Prasad Son of Late Chandrika Rai Resident of Village- Mirampur,
P.S.- Raghopur, District- Vaishali.
4. Baby Kumari Daughter of Subash Pasi Resident of Village Jamalpur, Ward-
19 (Pasi Tola), P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria.
5. Shailendra Kumar Son of Ramashray Prasad Resident of Village-
Khgojachak (Puranderchak), P.S.- Ekangar Sarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director (Primary Education), New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, P.O. Veterinary
College, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Veterinary College,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Veterinary College,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra (Sc16)
For the BSSC : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv.
Mr. Ankit, Adv.
Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
despite his best effort, he has not been able to contact the
petitioners for filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit where for
the similar relief, the matters have been directed to be closed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11513 of 2019(8) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
the light of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in CWJC No.
12436 of 2019 (Samrendra Kumar Choudhary Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors.) wherein the following orders have been passed:-
“16. The oral contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that there are several posts lying vacant on
account of removal of candidates having fake
documents and the petitioners to be considered against
those posts has been delved. This Court reaches to the
conclusion that the advertisement relating to such posts
was done in 2010. More than 12 years have passed by.
Appointments under a selection process cannot be
allowed to be continued for years together. A select list
has to be treated to be alive only for a particular
period. In the opinion of this Court, even if there is no
statutory period laid down, a reasonable period of
three years can be treated as sufficient for completing
the process of selection after the select list is finally
prepared. Rights of participation and consideration of
persons who have become otherwise eligible during the
pendency of such selection process, is seriously
jeopardized on account of such selection process being
allowed to be continued for several years. Candidates
who may have been within age say in the year 2013,
may become overage, if the fresh selection process is
not initiated by the State Government for more than 10
years. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed and
directions are given to the respondent to fill up the post
from the same selection process now, it would amount
to reverse discrimination vis-a-vis prospective
candidates who may be now be eligible to participate
in selection process against the vacant posts. For the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11513 of 2019(8) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
said reasons this Court would not issue a writ of
mandamus to direct the State to fill up all the posts.
The State Government may choose validly not to fill the
post from the said selection on account of the long
delay and choose to conduct a fresh selection exercise.
In Shankarsan Das vs. Union of India, as reported in
1991 (3) SCC 47 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court
held as under:
"Para 7: It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an
invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do not
acquire any right to the post. Unless the
relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State
is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the
State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies
has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are
filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and not
discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this
Court, and we do not find any discordant note in
the decisions in State of haryana v. Subash
Patna High Court CWJC No.11513 of 2019(8) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v State of
Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of
Punjab." The same view has been reiterated in
three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Dinesh Kr Kashyap & ors. Vs.
South East Central Railways 2019 (12) SCC
798 & subsequent judgment in Mohd. Rashid
vs. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat &
Ors. 2020 (2) SCC 582."
17. Keeping in view thereto, this Court finds
that a quietus should now be given to the selection
process initiated in the year 2010. All the writ petitions
are accordingly dismissed. No cost"
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board has submitted that the case of the
petitioners is also required to be closed in the light of the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.
12436 of 2019 based on which Annexure R-3/B is said to have
been passed, which from part of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no.3.
4. Taking into account the fact that the selection
process cannot be allowed to be continued for several years,
whereafter on preparation of merit list, appropriate
recommendations have already been made and most of the
candidates by now have become over-aged, and any direction
issued would amount to reverse discrimination vis-a-vis
Patna High Court CWJC No.11513 of 2019(8) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
prospective candidates now eligible to participate in the
selection process, as such, the issues are required to be closed in
the interest of justice by giving quietus to the selection process,
which was initiated in the year 2010 as rights of participation
and candidature of persons, who have become now eligible
would severely get prejudiced, if the said selection of 2010, is
allowed to continue.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
Checking your session…