Patna High Court
Anjali SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, as the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection was deemed to be in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in the related civil appeals.
Summary
Anjali Sinha, selected under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) women quota in the 32nd Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, challenged the revision of the final result dated 10-12-2024 that cancelled her selection without notice. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary, violated the horizontal reservation for women, and ignored the proper computation of EWS vacancies. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Bihar Public Service Commission, contended that the cancellation was mandated by the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 6072/2023 and related cases, which required adjustment of vacancies to accommodate another candidate, Aditi. The petitioner’s reply highlighted inconsistencies in vacancy calculations and cited the Supreme Court’s rounding‑off principle in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari. The Court noted that the cancellation stemmed from the Supreme Court’s directions and, after the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- The legality of cancelling the petitioner’s selection under the EWS women quota without prior notice.
- Whether the adjustment of vacancies to accommodate another candidate must be made from the 35% horizontal reservation for women.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s orders in Civil Appeals No. 6072‑6074/2023 are binding on the Bihar Public Service Commission’s result.
- The correct method of computing and rounding off reservation quotas under the EWS category.
Subjects
- reservation
- EWS quota
- horizontal reservation
- judicial service examination
- writ petition
- cancellation of result
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2614 of 2025
======================================================
Anjali Sinha, Daughter of Sanjay Kumar, Resident of Sumitra Niwas, Harijan
School Ashok Nagar, Pokharia Ward No. 30, Police Station Begusarai, Post
Office Begusarai, District -Begusarai, State - Bihar, PIN Code-851101
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Nehru Path, Patna-800001 through
Secretary.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Nehru Path, Patna.
5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Nehru Path,
Patna.
6. The Registrar General, The High Court of Judicature at Patna
7. Aditi Daughter of Late Sadanand Madhukar Resident of Khabra urf Kiratpur
Gurdas, Police Station - Khabra, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Ranjan, Advocate
For BPSC : Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate
For State : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, GP 19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 21-01-2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner – Anjali Sinha seeking for the following prayers:-
“(1) To issue appropriate writ for quashing
of the order dated 10.12.2024 by which Respondent No.
4 (Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna), published a revised final result of
32nd Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination
under Advertisement No. 23/2023 dated 20.02.2023,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/10
issued for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), under which the candidature of the petitioner
(Merit Serial No. 159, Roll No. 111718) selected under
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota has been
cancelled, without giving any notice to the petitioner,
and in her place respondent No. 6 has been appointed.
(II) That the petitioner further prays for
direction upon the Bihar Public Service Commission, to
make recommendation of the name of the petitioner for
her appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No.
23/2023, for appointment on the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in connection with 32nd Bihar Judicial
Service Competitive Examination.
(III) To issue any other direction, order, rule,
and grant relief/reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court find
the petitioner fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the
Advertisement No. 23 of 2023, dated 20.02.2023 issued by the
Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
‘BPSC’), the petitioner herein had applied for appointment to
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under 32nd Bihar
Judicial Service Competitive Examination under the
Economically Weaker Section (Women) category. The petitioner
was then allowed to appear in the preliminary test and she
qualified the said Preliminary Examination, thereafter she
appeared in the Mains Examinations and Viva-Voce test and
ultimately, on 28.11.2024, the BPSC published the final result
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/10
and she was declared qualified for appointment to the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Divison). The name of the petitioner
appeared at Serial No. 15 of the EWS category. It is stated that
petitioner has been selected against the post reserved in the
EWS category for female category post under 35 % horizontal
reservation for women. Further, it is stated that respondent No. 4
on 10.12.2024 issued revised final result and cancelled the
candidature of the petitioner, hence by way of filing the present
writ petition, the petitioner has raised her grievance with regard
to the revised final result by which she has been ousted from the
merit position.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein in paragraph Nos. 10 to 17 it
is stated as follows:
“10) That in this context it is relevant to state
here that in the B.P.S.C declared the final result of 31st
Judicial Service Competitive Examination on 14.11.2022.
In the said result total 214 candidates were declared
successful and 23 candidates were declared successful
under E.W.S. category including 07 females.
11) That 5 candidates who were allowed to
participate in the interview in 31st Bihar Judicial Service
Competitive Examination were cancelled owing to
various reasons out of which the candidature of one
candidate namely Aditi, respondent No. 07, Roll No.
100111 was cancelled on the ground of acquiring the
degree of LL.B after the date of making application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/10
12) That the Respondent No. 07 being
aggrieved from cancellation of candidature preferred
Civil Appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 6074/2023.
13) That as per order dated 22.09.2023
passed in Civil Appeal No. 6074/2023 and analogous
cases the appointment of Respondent No. 07 was made
against EWS women category.
14) That as consequence of appointment of
the Respondent No. 07 under 32nd Bihar Judicial Service
the B.P.S.C published result of 3 EWS women category in
place of 4 post.
15) That it is relevant to state here that the
B.P.S.C erred in publishing result of 4 EWS women
category in place of 3 EWS Women category.
16) That, however the General
Administration Department, Govt, of Bihar vide letter
No. 19621 dated 06.12.2024 reminded the B.P.S.C to
keep one post reserved pursuant to order passed in Civil
Appeal No. 6072/2023 and SLP (C) Diary No.
47769/2023 and in compliance of the letter No. 91908-09
dated 30.11.2024 issued under the signature Hon'ble
High Court and accordingly the result was revised by the
B.P.S.C. Thus the present petitioner as well as an another
candidate were excluded from the select list for
appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
17) That since the candidature of the
petitioner for 32nd Judicial Service competitive
Examination has been cancelled in compliance of the
order dated 22.09.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.
6072/2023 with Civil Appeal No. 6073/2023 and
6074/2023 and hence the instant writ application has got
no merit and thus the same is fit to be dismissed by this
Hon'ble Court.”
4. The petitioner has filed reply to such counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
5/10
affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein in
paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11, it is stated as follows:
“5. That it is stated that in so far as the denial
of a fact can only be in express terms and is further
required to be clear, categorical and unequivocal, the
following facts have been evidently admitted by the
answering respondents:
I. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility,
qualification or merit of the petitioner since she had
demonstrably obtained more marks than the cut-off for
her respective category.
II. There is no objective or equitable ground
to cancel the selection of the petitioner.
III. There were indeed discrepancies in the
vacancies earmarked for EWS (Women) candidates in the
Advertisement No. 23/2023 dated 20.02.2023.
IV. The petitioner was given no notice before
cancelling her selection vide the impugned revised final
result dated 10.12.2024.
6. That it is stated that from a perusal of the
counter affidavit, it is also not evident as to why:
I. The total vacancies earmarked for EWS
(Women) candidates was shown as 4 in the Advertisement
No. 23/2023 dated 20.02.2023 even though the 35% of 15
comes to a total of 5.25.
II. The revised final no. of vacancies in favour
of EWS (Women) candidates was taken as 4 even though
the 35% of 14 comes to 4.9 and according to the normal
logic of rounding off it should be treated as 5 especially
when treating it as five does not exceed the permissible
reservation limit. This rule has also found favour with the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Pawan
Kumar Tiwari, (2005) 2 SCC 10 where it was held as
follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
6/10
"The rule of rounding off based on logic and
common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value
shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then
its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been
rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47
candidates would have been considered for selection in
general category, the respondent was sure to find a place
in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence
entitled to appointment."
The Respondent No. 7 could not be
accommodated against the earmarked vacancies
available under the 31 Bihar Judicial Service Competitive
Examination instead of borrowing a post from the 32nd
Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination. It is
relevant to point out here that from the reply to an RTI
application contained in Letter No. 19286 dated
03.03.2025 issued under the signature of the Authorized
Person: J.R. (J)-cum-P.I.O., Patna High Court, it has
become clear that a total of 23 posts were advertised
under the EWS category out of which 7 were reserved for
females which evidently is an anomaly since the 35% of
23 is 8.05 meaning there was room for accommodating
one more qualified and meritorious candidate had the
vacancies been properly computed. It is pertinent to note
here that had directed the Respondents in Civil Appeal
No. 6072 of 2023, namely the State of Bihar and Ors. to
"to adjust one vacancy of EWS for the same examination
or from the next examination and extend similar benefits
to Aditi, in view of the ratio of Aarav Jain". It is thus clear
that it was open to the Respondents to accommodate
Respondent No. 7 in terms of the vacancies under the 31st
Bihar Judicial Bihar Judicial Service Competitive
Examination.
9. That it is stated that in response to the
statements made in paragraph No. 13 to 15 of the counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
7/10
affidavit, it is submitted that in terms of the letter issued
under the signature of the Joint Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar and
addressed to the Respondent Secretary, BPSC contained
in Memo No. 21568 dated 23.11.2023, requisite
adjustments were required to be carried out in terms of
judicial orders and consequently, as against a total of 15,
14 vacancies were proposed under the EWS Category
(Category Code No. - 07). However, the letter was silent
regarding the manner of the adjustment and nowhere in
the said letter, it was either stated or implied that in order
to make room for Respondent No. 7, the available
vacancies under the EWS (Women) category had to be
reduced. Hence, the impugned revised final result dated
10.12.2024 whereby only 3 women candidates were
declared successful under the EWS (Women) category and
the petitioner was pushed out of the selection zone
apparently to make room for the Respondent No. 7 does
not square with even the recommendations of the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar. This
letter was supplied to the petitioner by the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, along
with letter contained in Memo No. 2675 dated
13.02.2025.
10. That it is stated that in view of the
clarification it is submitted there was no legal infirmity in
the result dated 28.11.2024 published by the B.P.S.C.
whereby 4 EWS (Women) candidates including the
petitioner were declared as successful. It is submitted here
that in the absence of a specific direction to this effect by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be stated with certainty
that the Respondent No. 7 was required to be
accommodated against the 35% quota reserved for EWS
(Women) candidates. Thus, there was no apparent reason
to reduce the total number of seats reserved horizontally
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
8/10
in favour of women candidates and drive the petitioner
out of zone of selection when the same result could have
been achieved by reserving one seat from the vacancies
not falling within the 35% quota. It is therefore submitted
that the targeted deduction of a seat from the 35% seats
reserved horizontally in favour of EWS (Women)
candidates which comes to a total of 4 was unfair and
arbitrary.
11. That it is stated that in response to the
statement made in paragraph No. 16 of the counter
affidavit whereby the exclusion of the petitioner from the
zone of selection is sought to be justified with reference to
the reminder issued by the General Administration
Department and the letter of this Hon'ble High Court, it is
stated that the same is entirely misconceived. It is further
stated and submitted that:
I. Though the letter no. 19621 dated
06.12.2024 reportedly issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar is not
available on record, it is safe to assume that the reminder
to keep one post vacant was only to ensure compliance
with the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 6072/2023 and
its analogous cases SLP (Civil) Diary No. 47769/2023
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. The requisite adjustment
pursuant to the order passed in Civil Appeal No.
6072/2023 and its analogous cases was not specifically
required to be made from the 35% quota reserved
horizontally in favour of women candidates.
II. There was nothing in the order dated
30.11.2024 issued under the signature of the Registrar
General, Patna High Court that required any changing
with the total vacancies available under the EWS
Category (Category Code - 07) and much less under the
EWS (Women) Category.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
9/10
5. After going through the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent Nos.1 and 2, it becomes clear that on account of
passing of the order dated 22.09.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6072
of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 6073 of 2023 and Civil Appeal
No. 6074 of 2023, the candidature of the petitioner for 32 nd
Judicial Service Competition Examination has been cancelled.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.6 as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent –
Bihar Public Service Commission along with the State of Bihar
submit that when the matter was adjudicated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, at that point of time the result was not published
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not aware that the
petitioner has been selected and therefore, the learned counsel
for the respondent submits that since the petitioner has been
affected by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, she should
file review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against
the order passed.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote paragraph
No. 25 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
22.09.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6072 of 2023 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9964 of 2022) and its analogous cases,
which reads as under :
“25. Reverting to the case of appellant Aditi,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2614 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
10/10
which is related to the 31 Examination, as per the
affidavit submitted by the Registrar General, it is
apparent that out of 221 vacancies advertised, only 214
candidates were recommended for appointment and
seven vacancies have been carried forward to the 32nd
Examination. Thus, there are vacancies, which are yet to
be filled up for the 32nd Examination. The process of
selection is not yet complete. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State of Bihar and BPSC, in the peculiar
facts of the case, have fairly stated that because of the
directions issued by this Court in the case of Aarav Jain
(supra), the other candidates who secured more marks
than the cut-off in the merit of the respective categories,
can be accommodated. However, upon issuance of
directions by this Court, the State Government is ready to
accommodate all the three candidates (namely Sweety
Kumari, Vikramaditya Mishra and Aditi) who have also
secured more marks than cut-off for their respective
categories.”
8. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition
to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of as
withdrawn.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
GAURAV S./-
U
Checking your session…