Patna High Court

Shashank ShekharversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RITESH KUMAR

Holding

The petitioner, being an outsourced employee, was not eligible for the experience weightage marks and the selection list stands; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a physiotherapist, applied for a post advertised by the Bihar Technical Service Commission and was initially awarded 57.466 marks, including 25 weightage marks for work experience. He later challenged the removal of those weightage marks, arguing that his experience in a government hospital, though obtained through the Indian Red Cross Society as an outsourced employee, should qualify under Clause 4(iii) of the advertisement. The Commission and the State argued that a 2021 government resolution limited weightage marks to candidates appointed on a contractual basis, excluding outsourced staff. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing non‑arbitrariness and the relevance of work experience irrespective of the mode of employment. The Court examined the advertisement, the 2021 resolution, and the cited case law, concluding that the resolution was valid and the petitioner was not a contract employee. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ and dismissed the petition, upholding the selection list. The decision affirmed that the weightage marks could lawfully be denied to outsourced employees.

Issues considered

Whether an outsourced employee is entitled to weightage marks for work experience under Clause 4(iii) of the Bihar Technical Service Commission advertisement.
Whether the exclusion of outsourced employees from weightage marks, based on the 2021 state resolution, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the 2021 resolution and related rules validly restrict weightage marks to contract‑based appointments.
Whether the selection list should be quashed on grounds of arbitrariness and denial of statutory benefit.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16, Article 309

Subjects

recruitment
weightage marks
work experience
outsourcing
contractual appointment
Arbitrariness
Article 14
Article 16
selection list
physiotherapist
Bihar Technical Service Commission
government resolution

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2628 of 2023
======================================================
Shashank Shekhar S/o Uttam Prasad Keshri, R/o Vill. Bhatta Durgabari, P.O.
Purnea, P.S. Purnea, Dist. Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department,
Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Bihar Technical Service Commission through its Chairman, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna.
4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Purnea.
5. The Superintendetn Govt Medical College and Hospital, Purnea.
6. Priyaranjan Lal, s/o Nandlal Prasad, Dist. Arwal.
7. Dewbrat S/o Paras Nath Prasad, Dist. Purbi Champaran.
8. Md. Arshad Ali S/o Md. Salimuddin, Dist. Vaishali.
9. Manoj Kumar, S/o Janardan Prasad Sahu, Dist. Patna.
10. Satyendra Gupta, S/o Shyamdeo Prasad, Dist. Gopalganj.
11. Md. Sarfraz Alam, S/o Md. Aminuddin Ansari, Dist. Araria.
12. Navin Kumar Mandal, S/o Brahmdeo Mandal, Dist. Patna.
13. Santosh Kumar Suman, S/o Ramu Pd. Gupta, Dist. Madhepura.
14. Md. Zahid Hussain Ansari, S/o Dr. M Khalid, Dist. Patna.
15. Amar KUmar, S/o Ravindra Prasad, Dist. Nawada.
16. Binod Kumar Sahani, S/o Bisheshwar Sahani, Dist. Begusarai.
17. Annapurna, D/o Jai Prakash Chourasia, Dist. Munger.
18. Piyush Kumar, S/o Shailendra Kumar Mandal, Dist. Munger.
19. Imran Alam, S/o Gyasuddin Ansari, Dist. Darbhanga.
20. Gyan Prakash, s/o Jai Prakash, Dist. Nalanda.
21. Robina Shamim, D/o Md. Shamin Akhtar Ansari, Dist. Gopalganj.
22. Sneha Suman, D/o Rabindra Prasad, Dist. Purbi Champaran.
23. Suraj Kumar, S/o Anandi Parasad, Dist. Patna.
24. Sonam D/o Prabhash Kumar Dist. Nawada.
25. Mohd. Rizwan, S/o Bhagwan Sah, Dist. Sitamarhi.
26. Niwedita Kumari, D/o Late Shiv Shankar Sharma, Dist. Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 24-03-2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
2/21

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for

quashing the selection list, by which the lower merit marks

candidates have been selected, instead of the petitioner. Further,

prayer in the writ petition is for a direction upon the respondent

authorities to correct the selection list after including the name

of the petitioner and accordingly, issue appointment letter on the

post of Physiotherapist in favour of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ

petition are that an advertisement was published by the Bihar

Technical Service Commission, Government of Bihar, Patna

whereby total 126 posts of Physiotherapist was published vide

Advertisement No. 02 of 2020, wherein the minimum

qualification for appointment was mentioned. As per clause

4(iii) of the advertisement, 5 marks for each years was to be

given as weightage mark, for the person working in the

Government Hospital/other departments of the Government in

the State and the maximum weightage mark to be given was 25.

The petitioner, being eligible submitted his application on

25.05.2021 and thereafter the scrutiny of the application form of

all the candidates was done. After scrutiny, the respondent

authorities published the merit list/marks wherein the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
3/21

is shown to have obtained 57.466 marks. Pursuant thereto, vide

letter no. 2235 dated 01.12.2021, issued under the signature of

the Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna, call

letter for counselling to the selected candidates was issued,

including the petitioner.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submits that all of a sudden, the marks given to the petitioner

towards his experience, was withdrawn, upon which the

petitioner raised an objection by filing an application before the

competent authority. Along with his objection/application the

petitioner submitted relevant documents in support of his claim,

but the said weightage mark was not given to the petitioner.

However, vide letter no. 1119 dated 26.05.2022, issued under

the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Technical Service

Commission, Patna, the petitioner was directed to produce

appointment letter, for the work done by him in Government

Medical College and Hospital, Purnea w.e.f. 30.07.2010 to

31.01.2018. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the

required document before the respondent authorities on

30.05.2022.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

further submits that all of a sudden, the selection list was
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
4/21

published, wherein the cut off marks for EBC (M) category was

54.4933, but the petitioner who was awarded 57.466 marks, was

not selected, since no weightage marks for the experience

acquired by the petitioner, while working in the Government

Medical College and Hospital, Purnea, was given. He submits

that the action of the respondent authorities in denying the

weightage marks, for the work experience is arbitrary and

without deciding the objection filed by the petitioner, the

respondent authorities proceeded to publish the select list,

wherein the name of the petitioner does not figure.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner worked as a Physiotherapist in

Government Medical College and Hospital, Purnea w.e.f.

22.06.2010 till 31.01.2018 and he was entitled for being given

the weightage marks, but the respondent authorities in complete

violation of the Clause 4(III) of the advertisement, did not

provide the said weightage marks to the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Bihar Technical Service Commission submits that

in view of the Rules framed by the State Government, Bihar

Technical Service Commission Selection Procedure Rules 2018

came into effect. The Department of Health, Government of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
5/21

Bihar, Patna in exercise of its own power under proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India came out with Bihar

Physiotherapist/Occupational Therapist Cadre Rules 2014 which

was later on amended vide 2nd amendment to Rules 2014. The

State Government as per Rule 3(iii)(c), in view of 2 nd

amendment, in 2019 provided for work experience in

Government Hospital and other departments of Bihar, wherein 5

marks for each completed year was to be given as weightage

marks, subject to maximum of 25 marks. The Bihar Technical

Service Commission published the Advertisement No. 02 of

2020 for the post of Physiotherapist in consonance with the

Rules framed by the State Government as well as the checklist

provided by the Department of Health, Government of Bihar

and in furtherance thereof provided Clause 4(iii) of the

Advertisement, which specifically provide for award of 5 marks

for each completed year, up to the maximum of 25 marks to

each candidate, who has got work experience of contract basis in

any Government Hospital or other Departments of the State

Government.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Bihar Technical Service Commission further submits that the

work experience certificate of the petitioner was issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
6/21

Indian Red Cross Society, Purnea, therefore, the same was not

accepted by the Commission, since the petitioner was an

outsourced employee in the Sadar Hospital, Purnea and the work

experience of the petitioner was not covered, as per Clause 4(iii)

of the Advertisement, therefore, he was not awarded any

weightage marks for the work experience claimed by him.

Further from perusal of the Circular/Resolution of the State

Government contained in Memo No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021

issued by the General Administration Department, specifically

Clause 5 thereof, it would transpire that weightage of 5 marks

for each completed year, subject to maximum 25 marks, would

only be granted to the candidates who had worked on

contractual basis in any Government Department of the State

and its allied departments. The Clause 5 of the resolution dated

22.01.2021, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

" …(5) mi;ZqDr lqfo/kk,Wa dsoy fof/kor~ fu;ksftr lafonk dfeZ;ksa dks
vuqekU; gksxhA ;s lqfo/kk,Wa voS/k fu;qfDr;ksa] nSfud osruHkksxh dfeZ;ksa ,oa
okg~; lsok iznkrk ls lsok izkIr dfeZ;ksa ds laca/k esa ykxw ugha gksaxhA nwljs
“kCnksa esa ftu dfeZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr lkekU; iz”kklu foHkkx ds ladYi
Kkikad&2401 fnukad 18-07-2007 (le;&le; ij ;Fkkla”kksf/kr) esa
fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k esa dh xbZ gSa] dsoy mUgha lafonk dfeZ;ksa ds
lanHkZ esa mi;qZDr lqfo/kk,Wa vuqekU; gksxhA
dsoy os gh fu;kstu oS| lafonk fu;kstu gSa ftuds laca/k esa&
(1) in Lohd`r gks]
(2) fu;qDr dehZ in dh vgZrk j[krk gks]
(3) in foKkfir fd;k x;k gks]
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
7/21

(4) fu;qfDr gsrq p;u@Ldzhfuax lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gks ,oa
p;u izfdz;k viuk;h x;h gks]
(5) fu;qfDr l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk dh xbZ gks]
(6) vkj{k.k ds fl)kar dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k gksA
ftu lafonk fu;kstu ds lanHkZ esa mi;qZDr “krksZa dk vuqikyu
ugha fd;k x;k gS] os voS/k fu;qfDr;kWa dgyk;saxhA ”

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the Bihar Technical Service Commission further submits that the

Civil Surgeon, Purnea by his letter no. 1316 dated 11.06.2022

had informed the Commission with regard to the

appointment/working of the petitioner, wherein it was informed

that the petitioner was working on need based basis as a

outsource employee through Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Purnea,

therefore, he is not entitled for being granted the weightage

marks.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Bihar Technical Service Commission by referring to

supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

Commission, submits that so far the contention with regard to

acceptance of work experience certificate and grant of marks to

his work experience on the basis of the certificate is concerned,

the work experience certificate of the petitioner was issued by

the Indian Red Cross Society, Purnea, therefore the same was

not accepted by the Commission, as the petitioner was termed as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
8/21

outsource employee working in the Sadar Hospital, Purnea,

therefore, the work experience of the petitioner is not covered

under the Clause of the advertisement. The Commission duly

intimated the petitioner that he was not awarded the marks for

his work experience in view of Clause 3(iii) of the

advertisement on the ground that he was appointed by an

outsourcing agency (Indian Red Cross Society) and in view of

the Resolution of the State Government contained in Memo No.

1003 dated 21.01.2021 issued by the General Administration

Department, specifically Clause 5 thereof, which has been

quoted above.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Bihar Technical Service Commission further submits that so far

the Red Cross Society is concerned, a learned Single Judge of

this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed in C.W.J.C.

No. 14779 of 2023 has held that the Indian Red Cross Society is

not a instrumentality of the State and is a mere society registered

under the Society Registration Act, therefore the experience

certificate given by the society cannot be treated to be valid

experience.

12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Bihar Technical Service Commission finally submits that since
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
9/21

the petitioner is an employee working in Government Medical

College and Hospital, Purnea as an outsourced employee,

through the Indian Red Cross Society, his work experience was

not counted in terms of the advertisement, thereby the

Commission rejected the claim for the work experience.

13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in

reply submits that the petitioner was working in a Government

Hospital, on the basis of the contractual appointment and he was

appointed by the Civil Surgeon, Purnea as a Physiotherapist and

his name also appeared in the list of the State Health Society,

Bihar and further the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Sadar Hospital,

Purnea is a part of the District Health Society, Bihar, Patna,

therefore, the petitioner is entitled for being given weightage

marks in terms of the advertisement.

14. It appears from the records that vide order dated

24.02.2025 passed in the present writ petition notices were

issued to the private respondent nos. 6 to 26 and they were

directed to file their counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has

been file on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 26 (the selected

candidates) wherein it has been stated that they have been

recommended by the Bihar Technical Service Commission for

being appointed, as per the merit list prepared on the basis of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
10/21

counselling of the candidates/applicants and pursuant thereto

vide letter no. 1146 dated 26.12.2022, the Department of Health,

Government of Bihar, Patna has already posted the respondent

nos. 6 to 26 at their respective place of posting and they are

working on their respective posts at their respective place of

posting, to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The

commission has rightly not awarded any marks to the petitioner

for his work experience, since the same was not as per the

advertisement and the Circular/Resolution of the State

Government.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to

26 submits that the selection of the respondents was made after

following due process of law and the petitioner has not been

given the benefit of weightage marks, since his work experience

was on the basis of outsource, through Red Cross Society and as

per the Circular of the State Government, the weightage is not to

be granted for persons working through outsource agency.

16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

relies on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013 wherein in paragraph no.

30 and 42, it has been held as follows:-

30. What is clear from above is that the
object of any process of selection for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
11/21

entry into a public service is to ensure
that a person most suitable for the post
is selected. What is suitable for one post
may not be for the other. Thus, a degree
of discretion is necessary to be left to the
employer to devise its method/procedure
to select a candidate most suitable for
the post albeit subject to the overarching
principles enshrined in Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution as also the
Rules/Statute governing service and
reservation. Thus, in our view, the
appointing authority/ recruiting
authority/ competent authority, in
absence of Rules to the contrary, can
devise a procedure for selection of a
candidate suitable to the post and while
doing so it may also set benchmarks for
different stages of the recruitment
process including written examination
and interview. However, if any such
benchmark is set, the same should be
stipulated before the commencement of
the recruitment process. But if the extant
Rules or the advertisement inviting
applications empower the competent
authority to set benchmarks at different
stages of the recruitment process, then
such benchmarks may be set any time
before that stage is reached so that
neither the candidate nor the
evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken
by surprise. The decision in K.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
12/21

Manjusree (supra) does not proscribe
setting of benchmarks for various stages
of the recruitment process but mandates
that it should not be set after the stage is
over, in other words after the game has
already been played. This view is in
consonance with the rule against
arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of
the Constitution and meets the legitimate
expectation of the candidates as also the
requirement of transparency in
recruitment to public services and
thereby obviates malpractices in
preparation of select list.

42. We, therefore, answer the reference in
the following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences
issuance of the advertisement calling
for applications and from the ends
with filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in
the Select List, notified at the
commencement of the recruitment
process, cannot be changed midway
through the recruitment process
unless the extant Rules so permit, or
the advertisement, which is not
contrary to the extant Rules, so
permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or
the advertisement, the change would
have to meet the requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
13/21

satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra)
lays down good law and is not in
conflict with the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with
the right to be appointed from the
Select List whereas K. Manjusree
(supra) deals with the right to be
placed in the Select List. The two
cases therefore deal with altogether
different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the
extant Rules, may devise appropriate
procedure for bringing the
recruitment process to its logical end
provided the procedure so adopted is
transparent,non-
discriminatory/arbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to
be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force
are binding on the recruiting body
both in terms of procedure and
eligibility. However, where the Rules
are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in
the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no
indefeasible right to appointment. The
State or its instrumentality for bona
fide reasons may choose not to fill up
the vacancies. However, if vacancies
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
14/21

exist, the State or its instrumentality
cannot arbitrarily deny appointment
to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list.
17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

further relies on a judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC

3540 Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural

University, Hisar and Another versus Monika and Others

wherein in paragraph nos. 16, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27, it has been

held as follows:-

16. Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahal v. State of
Bihar arose out of a case where the
advertisement provided for the grant
of marks for work experience after
appointment on a regular/contract
basis in the government hospitals. In
the advertisement, it was also stated
that only work experience in
government hospitals of the
Government of Bihar would be
counted for this purpose. This Court,
therefore, in interpreting the term
"government hospital" held:
"20. It is a settled canon of statutory
interpretation that as a first step,
the courts ought to interpret the
text of the provision and construct
it literally. Provisions in a statute
must be read in their original
grammatical meaning to give its
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
15/21

words a common textual meaning.
However, this tool of interpretation
can only be applied in cases where
the text of the enactment is
susceptible to only one meaning.
[Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta,
(2005) 2 SCC 271, para
13.] Nevertheless, in a situation
where there is ambiguity in the
meaning of the text, the courts must
also give due regard to the
consequences of the interpretation
taken.
23. ... The phrase 'government
hospital' therefore cannot be
construed to exclude other non-
private hospitals which are
otherwise run exclusively with the
aid and assistance of the
Governments. Additionally given
the difference 'government
hospital' refers to all non-private
hospitals and not in common usage
wherein hospitals established by a
particular Government, Rules 5 &
6(iii) would not be bound by Rule
2(a)."
(emphasis supplied)
22. A literal reading of the terms relating
to experience confirms that marks
could be secured by an aspirant for
experience gathered while working in
the enumerated departments of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
16/21

Government of Haryana; however,
while referring to 'same or a higher
post', the term 'sanctioned' as a prefix
is conspicuous by its absence.
Additionally, neither the Outsourcing
Policy nor the Advertisement defines
the word "post". What follows is that
an aspirant, to secure mark for
experience, must prove with
documents that he/she has been
employed for performing work of the
nature required by the same or a
higher post. Importantly, it has not
seen shown that either the
Recruitment Rules or the
Advertisement specifically bar(s)
aspirants from securing marks for
experience sained from
contractual/outsourced employment.
Thus, we have no hesitation to hold
that the mode of employment is not
the primary concern. To our mind, the
primary concern is the nature of work
performed and whether the work
undertaken by the candidate has any
nexus with the purported work to be
undertaken during the course of
regular service. That the first
respondent had rendered service for a
statutory body in excess of six months
and is, therefore, covered by the last
part of clause (d) does not admit of
any doubt and hence, she had a valid
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
17/21

claim for securing 0.5 mark for
experience.

23. The state policy, specifying that the
individual must have worked on a
post equal to or higher than the
advertised posts in any of the
enumerated departments to secure
marks for experience, also reflects the
state's belief that the experience in
such departments is directly relevant
to the advertised posts. It is not open
for the University to now deny marks
on the basis of a technical procedural
deviation that the experience
certificate was not issued by the
University, but rather by the service
provider. While we accept the
contention raised by the University
that the certificate was per se not
issued by it, the fact that it was
countersigned by the Head of the
Department validates the first
respondent's claim that she had
indeed gained certain experience
which deserved to be given credit.
25. The first respondent, thus, cannot be
denied the benefit of mark for
experience merely because at the time
of appointment as outsourced
manpower, she was not appointed on
a sanctioned post.

26. The true thrust of every selection
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
18/21

process ought to be to find out and
select suitable candidates, having
experience in the related work and
fulfilling other criteria, from among
eligible candidates and to go ahead
with appointing the more meritorious
of those found suitable. If indeed an
individual without having any security
of service performs up to the mark
and receives commendation from
none other than the Head of the
Department, who must have closely
watched his/her performance, it
would occasion a failure of justice to
exclude such Individual for no better
reason than that he/she did not work
on a sanctioned post. If indeed such
be the requirement, it had to be made
explicitly clear in the Advertisement
without any ambiguity so as not to
generate false hopes in the minds of
individuals aspiring for public
employment. Any other view would be
against both the principles of equality
and non-arbitrariness enshrined in
the Constitution as well as principles
of natural justice. Tested on the
touchstone of Articles 14 and 16, the
impugned decision of the University
cannot sustain.
27. An underlying current throughout the
Constitution is the theme of "social
justice". The Preamble, as well as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
19/21

Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins
upon the State instrumentalities the
duty to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting, as
effectively as it may, a social order, in
which justice social, economic and
political shall inform all the
institutions of national life and in
endeavour to eliminate inequalities.
status, facilities and opportunities.
Whenever a conflict arises between
the powerful and the powerless, social
justice commands the Courts to lean
in favour of the weaker and poorer
sections where the scales are evenly
balanced.
18. After having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and after going through the materials available on record,

this Court finds that in the advertisement, which was issued for

appointment for the post of Physiotherapist and Occupational

Therapist, as per Clause 4(iii) weightage marks was to be given

for the work experience in the Government Hospital/other

departments of the Government in the State. The maximum

weightage marks which was to be given was 25 marks and in

terms of the said advertisement, the petitioner and others

applied. After preparation of merit list, the petitioner was

awarded 32.466 marks by deriving percentage points and 25

marks was awarded to him for the work experience. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
20/21

petitioner got total combined marks of 57.466, which was later

on reduced to 32.4655 on the ground, that the weightage marks

to the tune of 25 marks was applicable to the candidates, who

were appointed in the Government Hospital in the State of

Bihar on contract basis and the said benefit has not been given

to the outsourced employees. In case of the petitioner, since he

was working in the Government Medical College and Hospital,

Purnea through outsourcing agency Red Cross Society and since

the outsourcing agency does not follow any rule and regulation

for selecting a candidate, therefore as per the Resolution of the

State Government dated 22.01.2021 which is in continuation of

the earlier Circular of the General Administration Department

bearing Sankalp No. 2401 dated 18.07.2007, amended from time

to time, which stipulates that the weightage for work experience

will only be given to candidate working on contract basis,

recruited by following all due procedure of law and will not be

given to the candidates who were recruited illegally, daily wage

basis and through outsource agency. The petitioner was never

appointed on contract basis and it is not the case of the petitioner

that he was appointed on contract basis, rather he was appointed

in the hospital concerned through an outsourcing agency and,

therefore, rightly so he has not been given the weightage of 25
Patna High Court CWJC No.2628 of 2023 dt. 24-03-2026
21/21

marks and there is no infirmity in the same, since admittedly the

petitioner was working through an outsource agency i.e. Indian

Red Cross Society. The judgment relied upon by the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present

case, since the Rule has not been changed after issuance of the

advertisement rather in the present case, the Technical Service

Commission on the basis of Resolution of the State Government

dated 22.01.2021, which is before submission of the application

form by the petitioner and others, has proceeded with the

selection, therefore there is no infirmity in relying on the said

Resolution.

19. From the consideration made above, this Court

finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed

accordingly.

20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands

disposed of.

(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 19.02.2026
Uploading Date 24.03.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…