Patna High Court

Rina KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

Since the petitioner’s merit position (sl. no.1650) was lower than that of the last selected candidate (sl. no.1565) for the four posts she applied for, the court found no merit in granting relief and dismissed the writ.

Summary

The petitioner, Rina Kumari, applied for the 64th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) and secured 514 marks, exceeding the stated cut‑off of 513 for her unreserved (female) category. She filed a writ seeking declaration of success, arguing that vacancies remained and that her higher marks entitled her to appointment. The BPSC contended that for the four posts she applied for, the last selected candidate was at merit‑list position 1565, whereas the petitioner was at 1650, rendering her ineligible. The court examined the merit‑list positions, the effect of age‑limit corrigenda, and the relevance of several precedents on selection procedures and vacancy carry‑forward. It held that the petitioner’s merit position was lower than the last selected candidate for the relevant posts and that the cited judgments did not alter this factual matrix. Consequently, the court found no merit in granting any relief. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner, having secured marks above the cut‑off, is entitled to be declared successful despite a lower merit‑list position than the last selected candidate.
Whether the BPSC’s age‑limit corrigendum and vacancy carry‑forward provisions affect the petitioner’s right to appointment.
Whether precedents on selection transparency and merit‑list revisions are applicable to the present case.

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

public service commission
merit list
writ petition
selection process
right to information
appointment
age limit
transparency

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12528 of 2021
======================================================
Rina Kumari D/o Late Sheo Kumar Ojha, R/o-C/o-Rajesh Kumar Ojha,
Masjid Lane, Badi Khanjarpur, Jagdishpur, P.S.-Barari, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission.
4. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, S.C.8
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 09-02-2026

Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel assisted

by Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar Public

Service Commission (‘B.P.S.C.” in short).

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the

following relief(s):

“1. That this application is being filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction
upon the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC)
to declare the petitioner successful in the 64th
Combined Competitive Examination as she has got
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
2/13

514 marks which is more than the cut off marks of
513.
1/A. That the petitioners further pray for issuance of
an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the
part of the letter dated 17.06.2021 in which the
objection of the petitioner has been disposed of as
follows:-
“lqJh jhuk dqekjh] vuqØekad&570183] es/kk Øekad&1650 }kjk
dsoy vkiwfrZ fujh{kd] Je izoZu inkf/kdkjh] iz[kaM iapk;r jkt
inkf/kdkjh ,oa iz[kaM vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr
dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh ds inks ds fy, vf/kekurk dk vadu vius
vkosnu ds lkj izi=&II ¼?kks’k.kk½ esa fd;k x;k gSA mDr inksa ds
vUrxZr vukjf{kr ¼01½ efgyk dksfV esa p;fur vafre mEehnokj
es/kk Øekad&1565 ij vofLFkr gSaA mDr inksa ds fy, de
izkIrkad jgus ds dkj.k budk p;u ugha gqvkA”
1/B. That the petitioner further prays for issuance of
any other appropriate writ/order/direction to which
he is found entitled to.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the B.P.S.C.

came out with an advertisement on 2.8.2018 for the 64th

Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination for filling up

1255 vacancies of 19 different posts. The petitioner appeared

and having qualified in both the preliminary and mains

examination, was called for interview. She appeared for

interview on 10.2.2021.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to the

unreserved (female) category and the cut off as per the B.P.S.C.

for the said category is 513 marks. Inspite of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
3/13

having secured 514 marks ie more than the cut off marks, the

petitioner was not declared successful. As such, the petitioner

filed her objection on 10.6.2021 addressed to the Controller of

Examination, B.P.S.C. which was rejected vide order contained

in letter dated 17.6.2021, impugned herein.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner that subsequent to the advertisement

for the 64th Combined Competitive Examination published on

2.8.2018, the B.P.S.C. came out with a corrigendum on

5.11.2018 whereby the cut off age for four category of posts ie

(i) Supply Inspector (ii) Labour Enforcement Officer (iii) Block

S.C./S.T. Welfare Officer and (iv) Block Panchayati Raj Officer

was increased. The petitioner, who was not able to apply earlier,

as a result of change in the age limit of these four posts for the

petitioner’s category of unreserved (female) being from

1.8.1975 to 31.7.1981, the petitioner applied.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the B.P.S.C. did not disclose the method of

selection nor the reason for the petitioner’s non selection. As

would be evident from the letters brought on record by way of

annexures in the interlocutory application addressed to the

petitioner in response to her application under the R.T.I. Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
4/13

2005, it is submitted that posts are still vacant. As such, the

petitioner having secured more marks than the last selected

candidate of her category, the B.P.S.C. be directed to

recommend for her appointment. In support of his contention,

learned counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench

judgment of this Court dated 1.3.2021 passed in CWJC no.3952

of 2020 (Swati Chaturvedi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.).

Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal preferred by

the State of Bihar against this judgment in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2021 passed in

S.L.A. (C) no.11174 of 2021 (The State of Bihar vs. Swati

Chaturvedi and Ors.).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

many of the successful candidates not having joined on their

respective posts, vacancies still exist where the petitioner can be

appointed. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)

and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and

others; (2008) 17 SCC 703. As such, it is submitted that the writ

application be allowed with a direction to the respondents to

declare the petitioner successful in the 64th Combined

Competitive Examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
5/13

8. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing

for the B.P.S.C. submitted that the advertisement for

appointment on 1255 different posts in different departments of

the Government of Bihar was published on 2.8.2018. Originally

the cut off date for age being 1.8.2018, the petitioner could not

apply for the reason of her being over age. Subsequently on the

B.P.S.C. coming out with a corrigendum with the change in cut

off date for age in four categories of service, the petitioner

applied in those four categories.

9. It is submitted that a combined merit list was prepared

wherein the name of the petitioner figured on Sl. no.1650. The

last selected candidate in the unreserved (female) category to

which the petitioner belongs was placed at Sl. no.1565. Thus, on

account of the petitioner having obtained less marks than the

last selected candidate for the said four posts, the petitioner was

not selected.

10. Learned Senior counsel for the B.P.S.C. further

submitted that so far as the other 15 services are concerned,

there was no change in the cut off date for age with respect to

them and the petitioner being over age could not apply against

those 15 services and was not considered for them. Referring to

the petitioner’s application and more particularly the declaration
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
6/13

in Prapatra II, it is submitted that the petitioner clearly mentions

the four services wherein she is making the application. The

note therein with the title ‘important’ clearly provides that the

services against which a cross (x) has been placed, candidature

of the applicant will not be considered for them and persons

whose name figured below the applicant in the merit list may be

considered for the said services in case of any vacancies

remaining. It was submitted that so far as the remaining 15

services were concerned, the petitioner had put a cross against

the same not for the reason that she was not interested but for

the reason that she was not eligible to apply on account of her

being over age.

11. It is finally submitted by the learned Senior counsel

for the B.P.S.C. that so far as the vacancies with respect to non

joining is concerned, Clause 4(xiv) of the letter /guidelines

dated 17.6.1977 of the Department of Personnel, Government of

Bihar clearly provides that vacancies remaining unfilled due to

candidates not joining the post or for any other reason shall be

carried forward to the next year. Further, while the present

application arises out of the 64th Combined Competitive

Examination conducted in the year 2021, thereafter the B.P.S.C.

has also conducted the 65th, 66th, 67th, 68th and 69th Combined
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
7/13

Competitive Examination and the 70th Combined Competitive

Examination is going on. Reliance is placed on the judgment of

this Court in the case of Subodh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar &

Ors.; 2012 (2) PLJR 647.

12. In response, it is submitted by Mr. Abhijit Anand,

learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the 66th Combined

Competitive Examination, the candidate who secured 519 marks

was selected as the last selected candidate in her category had

obtained 518 marks. Learned counsel submits that there is no

transparency in the process of selection and further reliance is

placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High

Court and others; (2025) 2 SCC 1.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material on record.

14. The relevant facts in brief are that the B.P.S.C.

came out with an advertisement on 2.8.2018 for appointment on

1255 posts in different departments under the 64 th Combined

(Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2018. The last date for

filling up the form online was 31.8.2018 which was extended by

different notices till 10.9.2018.

15. The petitioner being over age could not apply against
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
8/13

any of the 19 posts mentioned in the advertisement. The

B.P.S.C. came out with two corrigendums on 6.8.2018 and on

14.8.2018 enhancing the vacancies to be filled up to 1465.

Thereafter the B.P.S.C. came out with a corrigendum on

5.11.2018 (Annexure P/1 to I.A. no.1 of 2025) stating therein

that for the four posts of Supply Inspector, Labour Enforcement

Officer, Block S.C./S.T. Welfare Officer and Block Panchayati

Raj Officer, the age limit was changed. For the category of the

petitioner ie unreserved (female), the change in the age was

made from 1.8.1975 to 31.7.1981. It further provided that those

persons who had not been able to file their applications on

account of being over age, could do so now for the said four

posts. It was pursuant thereto that the petitioner filed her

application.

16. The petitioner was successful in the preliminary and

the mains examination and on being called, appeared for

interview on 10.2.2021. On the B.P.S.C. coming out with the

results, the petitioner did not find herself to be selected.

17. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that

having secured 514 marks which was more than 513 marks

obtained by the last person selected in the petitioner’s category

of unreserved (female), the petitioner should have been selected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
9/13

18. In response, it has been submitted by the B.P.S.C.

that so far as the four posts against which the petitioner filed her

application, the last person who was selected in the petitioner’s

category of unreserved (female) was placed at sl. no.1565 while

the petitioner’s position in the merit list was at sl. no.1650.

19. It may be stated here that inspite of a copy of the

counter affidavit of the B.P.S.C. having been served on learned

counsel for the petitioner, no affidavit in response has been filed

contradicting the said statement.

20. It may also be noted that so far as the statement

with respect to the petitioner having obtained 514 marks and the

cut off marks in the petitioner’s category being 513 is

concerned, the said statement made in the writ petition is

conveniently vague in so far as it does not state that the cut off

marks of 513 is with respect to a person selected against any of

the four posts wherein the petitioner was an applicant. It may be

stated here that a person of the petitioner’s category

[unreserved(female)] for the remaining 15 posts wherein the

petitioner could not apply because of being over age, if such a

person has obtained 513 marks and has got selected, the same is

not relevant for the purpose of the petitioner’s case.

21. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
10/13

(I.A. no.1 of 2025) seeking permission to place additional

documents/RTI reply etc. along with the judgments of this Court

as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of the petitioner’s

contention on record. The said application was allowed by order

dated 27.1.2026.

22. It may be observed here that without there being

any pleading whatsoever, referring to the letter dated 13.2.2025

of the Public Information Officer, B.P.S.C. addressed to the

petitioner, learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to contend

that inspite of one Shruti Sujan having given her 20 th preference

for the post of BSCW, she got the same whereas the petitioner

did not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again tried to

raise the same in his written submissions.

23. It may be stated here that in absence of the

pleadings, no evidence by way of annexure can be considered.

In this context, reference may be made to the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead)

by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others; (1987) 2

SCC 555, Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

(1988) 4 SCC 534, National Textile Corporation Limited vs.

Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others;(2011) 12 SCC 695

and Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another;(2012) 8
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
11/13

SCC 148.

24. It may nevertheless be observed here that what is

relevant is not the serial number of the preference for which

Shruti Sujan opted for the service of BSCW but what was her

merit position in the combined merit list. At the cost of

repetition, it may be stated that specific pleading of the B.P.S.C.

that while the petitioner stood at merit sl. no.1650, the last

selected candidate in the petitioner’s category for the four posts

which the petitioner had opted was placed at merit sl. no.1565,

has not been contested by the petitioner.

25. The petitioner has relied on the judgments in the

case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High

Court & others, (2025) 2 SCC 1. Reliance has been placed

particularly on paragraph nos.29 to 34 of the judgment which

deals with an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

another, (2008) 3 SCC 512. It is submitted that 64th Combined

Competitive Examination is silent on the procedure adopted for

preparing the merit list. In the opinion of the Court, the facts of

the said case are distinguishable and have no application in the

present case. In the said case, after a select list of candidates

who had qualified both in the written examination and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
12/13

interview had been prepared, the High Court took a decision to

reduce the marks of the written examination from 100 to 75 and

taking 25 marks for interview prepared a fresh select list. In this

select list, the High Court also introduced minimum qualifying

marks for the interview as a result of which the candidates who

had been selected in the first select list prepared were excluded

in the second list. They challenged the same in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court interfered.

It may only be observed that the facts of this case bears no

resemblance to the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra)

and thus is of no assistance to the petitioner.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed

reliance on the judgment in the case of Purushottam vs.

Chairman, M.S.E.B. and another; (1999) 6 SCC 49, State of

U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj; (2000) 3 SCC 699 and State of

Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Sat Pal; (2013)11 SCC 737

to submit that if a candidate is entitled for appointment and has

approached the Court in time, he cannot be deprived of the

remedy because the selection list has expired during litigation.

27. It may be observed here that no interim order has

been passed in favour of the petitioner. Further, the merit serial

number of the petitioner being much lower to the last selected
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
13/13

candidate in her category for the four posts on which the

petitioner is an applicant, the instant judgments are of no

assistance to the petitioner till she is able to show that her

position is higher than the last selected candidate in the merit

list.

28. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case and specially that so far as the four

posts on which the petitioner filed her application, the last

selected candidate being at merit sl. no.1565 while the

petitioner’s merit sl. no. stood at 1650, in the opinion of the

Court, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any

relief.

29. The Court finds no merit in the instant case.

30. The writ application is dismissed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 27.01.2026
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…