Patna High Court

Anil KamalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court held that the advertisement’s condition of achieving the minimum cut‑off marks before granting work‑experience weightage is mandatory, and because the petitioners failed to meet it, the advertisement cannot be altered and the writ petition must be dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, a large group of contractual pharmacists, challenged Advertisement No. 22/2025 of the Bihar Technical Service Commission for regular pharmacist recruitment, alleging that it ignored Memo No. 12956 (16‑08‑2024) which mandated relaxation of age limits and inclusion of work‑experience marks. They sought to have the advertisement set aside or amended to grant the experience weightage. The Commission argued that the advertisement required candidates to achieve a minimum cut‑off before any experience marks could be added, and the petitioners had failed to meet that threshold. The court examined the advertisement’s clause 5(ii)(g), relevant constitutional provisions, and several precedents emphasizing strict adherence to prescribed selection procedures. It held that the minimum cut‑off condition is a mandatory prerequisite and, since the petitioners did not satisfy it, the advertisement could not be altered. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the recruitment advertisement must incorporate the relaxation and work‑experience weightage prescribed in Memo No. 12956 dated 16‑08‑2024.
Whether failure to obtain the minimum cut‑off marks bars candidates from receiving experience marks under clause 5(ii)(g) of the advertisement.
Whether the court can direct amendment of the advertisement or grant relief to contractual pharmacists in violation of the stated selection procedure.
Whether the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution preclude judicial interference with the advertised recruitment process.

Subjects

recruitment
pharmacist
work experience marks
minimum cut‑off
equality
Article 14
Article 16
contractual employees
judicial review
advertisement
relaxation

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2937 of 2026
======================================================
1. Anil Kamal S/O Suresh Prasad Singh, Village Goshnagar, P.O Kenarkala,
P.S Sarmera District Nalanda 811104.
2. Abhay Kumar, S/O Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Muh- Bichali Khndakpar, PO
and PS- Biharsarif, District-Nalanda 803101.
3. Manoj Kumar Sahu, S/O Jugeshwar Sahu, Village-Khopa, PO-Sadai Ratauli,
PS- Phulparas, District-Madhubani 847402.
4. Rakesh Kumar, S/O Shivnandan Sinha, Village-Gulzarbagh, PO and PS-
Karpi, District. Arwal-804419.
5. Mukesh Kumar, S/O Ramdeo Prasad Singh, Vill and PO-Pasraha, District-
Khagariya-851212.
6. Abhishek Kumar, S/O Nageshwar Prasad, House No. 35, Ramjanki Niwas,
Kailashpuri, PO- Lohiyanagar, PS-Patrakarnagar, Kankarbagh, District
Patna- 800020.
7. Amrendra Kumar, S/O Ram Kishor Narayan Singh, Narayan Bihar Colony,
Bes Lal Singh Path, Near Krishna Niketan, Dhanuki, Patna-800007.
8. Rajiv Rajan Kumar, S/O Radha Krishna Prasad, Daudnagar, District-
Aurangabad. Vill and PO-Tarari, PS 804407.
9. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, S/O Shiv Bihari Prasad, AT and PO-Onda, PS-
Asthawan, District-Nalanda-803107.
10. Priyanka Kumari, W/O Dinkar Prasad, Village-Kewai Bigha, PO- Dahapar,
PS- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda-803114.
11. Brajesh Kumar, S/O Ramanand Sharma, Vill. Sabnima, Sabnima Khurd,
District-Patna-803212.
12. Yugal Kishore Prasad, S/O Late Jawahar Prasad, Village and Post- Nawada,
District- Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114.
13. Shambhu Kumar Singh, S/O Late Ramchandra Singh, Vill and PO- Sirisiya
Khurd, PS- Adapur., District- East Champaran-845301.
14. Anil Kumar Mishra, S/O Rajendra Mishra, H.N. 318, Saraswati Sadan,
Kharanjah Road, Near Shiv Mandir, PO-Danapur Cantt. PS-Danapur, Patna-
801503.
15. Radha Nandan Raman, S/O Chulhay Sahu, Seikhtola Vill- Sisauni, PO and
PS Barhara, District- Supaul-847452.
16. Abhishek Kumar, S/O Krishnandan Singh, Vill-Sada Dambar, PO and PS
Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.-843111.
17. Pritam Kumar, S/O Subhash Prasad Yadav, At-Arariya, PO- Balha, PS-
Parbatia, District- Khagariya.
18. Deepak Kumar, S/O Mahesh Prasad, Satsang Bhawan PO and PS Gogari,
District- Khagaria-851202.
19. Ajit Kumar, C/O Gayanand Prasad, R/O Village Khirouna, PO and P S-
Rahui, District-Nalanda-803119.
20. Neeraj Kumar, S/O Jaynarayan Jaynarayan Paswan, Vill and PO Dhoawa, P
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
2/32

S Sanokhar, District Bhagalpur-813204.
21. Sanjay Kumar Kaul, S/O Ramsharan Mahto, East Laxminagar, New Bypass
Khemnichak, New Jaganpura, Patna-800027.
22. Raju Bhai Patel, S/O Dharambir Prasad, Vill and PO Khorampur, PO-
Islampur, Nalanda-801303.
23. Akhilesh Chandra Prabhakar, S/O-Kedar Prasad Verma, Vill, PO and PS
Pasraha. District-Khagaria-851212.
24. Priyanka Kumari, W/O Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, South of Badi Patandevi
Mandir, Gulzarbagh, Patna. P S-Alamganj, Patna-800007.
25. Sardanand Singh, S/O- Suryadeo Singh, Vill-Gordiha, P O- Sansa, PS
Daudnagar. District- Aurangavad.
26. Pitambar Kumar Chauhan, S/O Jawahar Lal Chauhan, Village- Kajra, P O-
Pachira, P S- Raniganj, District-Araria-854334.
27. Navin Kumar, S/O- Bhupendra Mandal, Vill-Bahadurpur, PO and PS Gogri,
District- Khagaria-851202.
28. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, S/O Krishnandan Singh, At-Paharpur, P O- Lohchi,
PS- H Kharagpur, District- Munger-811211.
29. Ajeet Kumar, S/O Ram Parvesh Thakur, Vill. Dumrawan, PO and PS-
Bankey Bazar, District- Gaya-824217.
30. Shakeel Ahmed, S/O- Gafoor Ahmed, Muh-Shekhalamchak, PO and PS-
Jehanabad-804408.
31. Pravin Kumar, S/O Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Vill and PO- Amarpur, Block-
Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai-811106.
32. Prabhat Kumar, S/O- Awadh Prasad, Vill. Mushouli, PO- Gangapur, PS-
Hulasganj (Jehanabad)-804407.
33. Dilip Kumar, S/O Lakhan Choudhry, Vill- Kujha, PO- Nadiganj, Nawada-
805123.
34. Koushlandra Kumar Suman, S/O- Gopal Singh, Vill-Harna, P O- Injor, PS-
Rampur Chouram, District- Arwal-804428.
35. Anand Prakash, S/O- Ramshankar Bharti, At and PO-Belaon, PS-Sickroul
Lakh, District-Buxer-802129.
36. Sanjay Kumar, S/O- Mathura Prasad, Vill-Mohaddipur, PO and P S- Bind,
District- Nalanda-803107.
37. Mukesh Kumar, S/O- Binod Kumar Singh, At-Rasidpur, P O- Khanpurmal,
PS- Bath, District- Bhagalpur-813213.
38. Chandan Kumar, S/O- Upendra Prasad, Vill- Singrahiya, PO-Kishanpur, P S-
Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi-843302.
39. Abhaya Kumar @ Avay Kumar S/O Nathuna Singh, Vill and PO-Kochahasa,
PS- Kinjar, District- Arwal-804426.
40. Ramesh Kumar, S/O- Suresh Prasad Singh, Vill-Rashidpur, PO- Khanpur
Mal, PS- Bath, District- Bhagalpur-813213.
41. Jaishankar Choudhry, S/O- Late Mahendra Prasad Choudhry, Near Uphar
cinema, Sahu Gali Ratu Road Hehal Ranchi-834005.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
3/32

42. Sameer Raj, S/O- Sitaram Paswan, Village-Sundarpur, PO-Bahachauki, PS-
Dharhara, Munger-811202.
43. Waker Ahmed, S/O Late Moinul Haque, Vill and PO and PS- Borio, District-
Sahebganj-816120.
44. Surendra Kumar, S/O Soharaj Pandit, Vill and PO-Faridpur, PS- Janipur,
District-Patna-801113.
45. Rakesh Kumar, S/O Rohin Kumar Ram, Vill-Manmarpur, PO- Fatehpur, PS-
Zero Mile, District- Bhagalpur-813210.
46. Avinash Kumar, S/O- Ram Parvesh Singh, Vill-Ratanpura, PO- Dariyapur,
PS- Islampur, District- Nalanda-801303.
47. Rajeev Ranjan, S/O- Ram Ayodhya Ram, mah-Mainpura, PO- Saguna Mor,
Danapur, District- Patna-801503.
48. Surya Narayan Sah, S/O- Guneshwar Sah, Vill-Sonbarsa, PO- Jirwa,
District- Madhepura-852128.
49. Ved Prakash Sinha, S/O Hari Prasad, Vill and PO-Nahub, PS- Rajgir,
District- Nalanda-803116.
50. Umesh Prasad Sinha, S/O- Mahadeo Mahto, Vill-Hemjapur, PO- Shivkund,
PS- Hemjapur, District Munger-5 811202.
51. Rajeev Kumar, S/O- Nagendra Prasad Gupta, At and Po- Sahuriya Subhai
Milk, Banmankhi Bnmankhi Purnia -854202.
52. Shahid Hussain Khan @ Shahid Hussan, S/O-Muzaffar Hussian Khan, Vill
and PO- Saho via Bahera, District-Darbhanga-847201.
53. Sanjay Kumar, S/O- Ramchandra Thakur, At and PO. Salmari, PS-
Alamnagar, District- Katihar-855113.
54. Vinay Kumar, S/O-Ramadhin Prasad, Village-Pachnuri, PS- Deepnagar,
District- Nalanda-803101.
55. Deepak Kumar, S/O- Raj Kishor Sharma, Muh-Shakuntala, PO and PS-
Biharsarif- District- Nalanda, 803101.
56. Sujeet Kumar, S/O- Mahendra Prasad, Village-Govindpur, PO-Baruane,
District- Nalanda-803307.
57. Paramhans Kumar Gupta, S/O- Mahadev Gupta, Vill and Po- Balthari, PS-
Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj-841503.
58. Sonu Kumar Suman, S/O- Dhanraj Singh, Vill-Kadwapa Pachgachhiya, PO-
Khairpur, PS- Naugachiya, District-Bhagalpur-853204.
59. Vijay Kumar, S/O- Arjun Prasad, Village and Buri, Warsliganj, District-
Nawada-805130.
60. Rajnath Kumar, S/O- Shivnath Ram, Muh-Pitambar Madir Arfabad Colony,
PO- Gulzarbagh, District-Patna-800007.
61. Balram Mahto, S/O-Sanichar Mahto, At- Khawa Chandra Tola, PO-
Kiranpur, District- Lakhisarai-811106.
62. Sumeet Gaurav, S/O- Birendra Kumar, Vill -Oknawan, PS- Deepnagar,
District-Nalanda-803111.
63. Awdhesh Kumar, S/O-Suresh Paswan, Vill-Sawalpur, PO- Marar, PS-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
4/32

Morkhahi, Khagariya-851205.
64. Dinesh Kumar, S/O- Nathuni Prasad, Village-Baraipura, PO- Birpur,
District- Begusarai-851127.
65. Amar Kumar, S/O- Dineshwar Pandit, At-Congress Muhalla Mahnar, PO
and PS- Mahnar, District- Vaishali-844506.
66. Sanjeet Kumar Paswan, S/O- Raghunandan Paswan, Vill- Dariyapur
(Mandir Tola), PS-Haragpur Haweli, Persando, District- Munger-811213.
67. Shashikant Kumar, S/O- Late Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, Ram
Krishnanagar West, PO- New jaganpura, PS-RK Nagar, Patna-800027.
68. Shashi Shekhar kumar, S/O-Manik Mandal, Vill-Hukma, PO- Dhuabai, PS-
Sikandarpur, District -Bhagalpur-813204.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar.
4. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chairman of the Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Narayan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA-7)
For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Technical

Service Commission, Patna.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for

issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari for

the following relief/s:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
5/32

“I. To set aside the part of Advertisement
No. 22 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025 for
appointment of regular Pharmacist
published by Bihar Technical Service
Commission, Patna which is contrary to
Letter No 12956 dated 16.08.2024 issued by
the Principal Secretary, General
Administration, Government of Bihar. Sub
section (iii) of Section 5 of the said
Advertisement which relates to non
consideration of work experience marks (25
Max) in Prelims and Main examination. It
is discriminatory and violative of earlier
Letter No 12956 dated 16.08.2024.
II. To amend the advertisement for selection
of permanent/regular pharmacist after
giving due consideration of Memo no.
12956 dated 16.08.2024 issued by the
Principal Secretary, General
Administration, Bihar.
III. To issue a fresh memo giving weightage
of work experience marks to the petitioners
in Preliminary and Main examination for
selection of regular and permanent
Pharmacist.
IV. Alternatively, regularize the services of
contract-based long-serving pharmacist in
the government services as per the principle
adopted in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India
reported in 2024 INSC 1034 by the Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
6/32

Court of India.
V. And further be pleased to grant other
relief/reliefs which petitioners may be found
entitled in facts and circumstances of the
present case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a

limited request that the interest of the contractual pharmacists

who were working since 2006 on the contractual post has not

been taken care of. Counsel submits that the Principal Secretary,

General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar has

issued a Letter No. 12956 dated 16.08.2024 which categorically

indicates that the contractual employees working on sanctioned

post in different government departments be given relaxation in

upper age limit by adding the number of years service rendered

as contractual employees in their upper age limit in future

advertisement for regular employment and also provided the

extra grace marks of work experience would be added in

formula for computing working experience grace marks in

preliminary and mains examination for regular appointment.

Counsel further submits that the said Letter No. 12956 dated

16.08.2024 has not been taken care of in the advertisement

which was published vide Advertisement No. 22/2025.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
7/32

Therefore, he submits that interest of the petitioners has been

badly hampered. Counsel submits that it is due to this reason,

request has been made to amend the advertisement in

consideration of Letter No. 12956 dated 16.08.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Bihar

Technical Service Commission submits that a detailed counter

affidavit has been filed. He submits that the petitioners are not

entitled for the relief as demanded in the present writ petition.

Counsel submits that all the petitioners have already participated

in the Advertisement No. 22/2025, but, none have achieved the

minimum cut-off marks as fixed in the advertisement itself.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Counsel submits that in the advertisement, method of selection

has already been indicated in which, 25 marks have been fixed

for on the basis of experience and 75 marks have been fixed for

by virtue of written competitive examination. He submits that in

Clause-5(ii)(g) of the advertisement, it has been categorically

indicated about the minimum cut-off marks for the respective

categories with a specific note that if, anyone get marks below

the cut-off marks, then those candidates shall not be entitled for

any claim. He submits that the advertisement which has been

challenged by the petitioners has to be taken place not in two
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
8/32

stages, rather, in only one stage. The petitioners were

unsuccessful in getting the minimum cut-off marks and only due

to this reason, they were not entitled to get the experience

marks.

5. Learned counsel for the Bihar Technical Service

Commission further submits that the issue which the petitioners

have raised before this Hon’ble Court has been tested in the

different judgments. Firstly, in case of Arjun Kumar Vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 13951 of 2024 decided

on 19.09.2024. Secondly, in case of Dr. Shankar Pandit & Ors.

Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 8115 of 2020

decided on 01.10.2021. Thirdly, in case of Kameshwar Kumar

& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 16140 of

2023 decided on 25.02.2025. Fourthly, in case of Bedanga

Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. reported in (2011) 12

SCC 85. Counsel submits that in the recruitment process, strict

adherence has to be followed according to the conditions of the

advertisement. He further submits that here in the present case,

the petitioners have not challenged the advertisement, rather,

when they were not selected on the ground of failing to achieve

the minimum cut-off marks, then only they moved before this

Hon’ble Court and requesting for change/amend the part of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
9/32

advertisement in the light of Annexure-P/2.

6. With a view to decide this case, it is necessary to

quote the relevant provision on which both parties are relying. It

is admitted that the advertisement was published in the year

2025 bearing Advertisement No. 22/2025, whose clause 5 is

very much relevant and reads as under:-

“5. चयन की ÁfØ;k- आयोग लललखत Áfr;®fxrk

परीका एवं कायारनुभव के आधार पर अभयलररयो

का चयन करे गा।

(i) लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका एवं कायारनुभव के

आधार पर चयन हे तु अभयलररयो की मे धासूची

लनमन Ádkj तै यार की जाये गी

(a) लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका (Computer

Based Test) के ललए पूरारंक - 75 अं क

(b) लबहार राजय के अनदर अवलसरत राजय के

सरकारी असपतालो / सवासथय लवभाग, लबहार

सरकार से समबद सं सरानो तरा गै र लनजी (d¢Uæ

सरकार, पं चायती राज, नगर लनकायो के

fu;a=.kk/khu) असपतालो मे dk;ZvuqÒo Áfro‘kZ

05 अं क, अलधकतम 25 अं क (लकसी वरर के अं श

के ललए कायरलदवसो की सं खया मे 05 से गु रा

करने के पशचात् 365 से भाग दे कर ÁkIr
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
10/32

अनु पालतक अं क जोडा जाये गा।)- 25 अं क

कुल- 100 अं क

नोट (i) अभयरीर दारा लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका

मे ÁkIrkad के ललए उकत परीका मे ÁkIr कुल

अं को का Áfr”kr को 0.75 के गु रक से गु रा करके

अवधालरत लकया जाये गा। यरा यलद लकसी

अभयरीर को कुल 50 Áfr”kr अं क ÁkIr हुआ हो

तो उसे 50 x 0.75 = 37.5 अं क लदये जाये गे ।

(ii) लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका आयोग सभी

अभयलररयो के ललए Computer Based Test के

माधयम से लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका आयोलजत

करे गा।

परीका का ikB;Øe-

(a) Áfr;®fxrk परीका के Á”u-i= मे कुल 100

Á”u होगे , सभी Á”u बहुलवकलपीय वसतु लनषठ Á—

fr के होगे । Á”u-i= लहनदी एवं vaxzsth दोनो

भारा मे होगे ।

b) परीका की अवलध दो घं टे की होगी और कुल

अं क 100 होगे ।

Pharmacy सतरीय ikB;Øe के आधार पर Á”u

पूछे जाये गे । उकत ikB;Øe आयोग के Website
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
11/32

पर अलग से Ádkf”kr लकया जाये गा।

(d) उकत परीका एक से अलधक पाललयो मे

Computer Based Test के माधयम से आयोलजत

लकया जाये गा एवं एक से अलधक पाललयो मे

परीका आयोलजत लकये जाने के कारर परीका

पलरराम समानीकरर (Normalization) की

ÁfØ;k अपनाते हुए तै यार लकया जाये गा।

(e) परीका मे गलत उतर के ललए नकारातमक

अं कन (Negative Marking) लागू लकया

जाये गा। ÁR;sd सही उतर हे तु 01 अं क दे य

होगा एवं ÁR;sd गलत उतर हे तु (0. 25) अं क

काटा जाये गा।

(f) उकत परीका के आधार पर सभी अभयलररयो

की समानीकरर (Normalization) की ÁfØ;k

अपनाते हुए परीका-फल घोलरत लकया जाये गा।

(g) कालमरक एवं Á”kklfud सु धार लवभाग, लबहार

के सं कलप सं खया-2374, लदनांक 16.07.2007 एवं

सामानय Á”kklu लवभाग, लबहार के सं कलप

Kkikad-962, लदनांक 22.01.2021 के दारा

लललखत परीका मे सामानय वगर के ललए 40%,

लपछडा वगर के ललए 36.5%, अतयं त लपछडा वगर

के ललए 34% एवं अनु सलू चत जालत/अनु सलू चत
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
12/32

जनजालत, मलहलाओं तरा लनःशकतता से xzLr

(लदवयां ग) उममीदवारो के ललए 32% लनधारलरत

नयूनतम अहरतांक ÁkIr करना अलनवायर होगा।

नोट:- Áfr;®fxrk परीका मे अभयलररयो को अपने

कोलट के अनु सार नयूनतम अहरतांक ÁkIr नहीं

होने पर अभयरीर का कोई भी दावा मानय नहीं

लकया जाये गा।

(iii) कायारनुभव का लाभ लललखत Áfr;®fxrk

परीका मे उतीरर अभयलररयो को ही लमले गा।

कायारनुभव Áek.k-i= सं बंलधत लजले के लसलवल

सजरन, लचलकतसा महालवदालय की लसरलत मे

Ákpk;Z, लचलकतसा महालवदालय एवं असपताल

की लसरलत मे अधीकक, अलतलवलशषट असपताल

की लसरलत मे लनदे शक तरा लवजापन की कंलडका-

5(i)(b) मे उलले लखत सं सरानो की लसरलत मे उकत

सं सरानो के Áèkku दारा लनगरत हो, आवे दन के

लवलहत कॉलम मे दजर करे गे । आवे दन मे

कायारनुभव का दावा नहीं होने पर कायारनुमत का

अं क एवं आयु सीमा मे NwV का लाभ दे य नहीं

होगा। कायारनुभव अवलध की गरना 11.03.2025

लतलर तक की जाये गी।

(iv) कायारनुभव Áek.k-i= हे तु पलरलशषट-1 मे
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
13/32

Ák:i (Format) सं लगन लकया गया है । इस

Ák:i मे ही कायारनुभव Áek.k-i= लदये जाने पर

कायारनुभव के अं को एवं आयु सीमा मे छट
ू का

लाभ लदया जाये गा। इस Ák:i से अलग लकसी

अनय Ák:i मे कायारनुभव Áek.k-i= लदये जाने

पर अं को का लाभ दे य नहीं होगा।

(v) लनयमानु सार, लललखत Áfr;®fxrk परीका मे

उतीरर (Qualified) अभयलररयो को लवजापन के

कंलडका-5(i) मे वलररत Ákoèkkuqlkj कोलटवार

मे धासूची तै यार कर दसतावे ज सतयापन

(Document Verification) हे तु vkeaf=r लकया

जाये गा।”

7. It transpires to this Court that the petitioners have

not suffered from the part of relaxation of the age, rather, they

have suffered only on the ground that experience marks have not

been provided to them.

8. This Court upon going through the provision laid

down in clause 5(ii)(g) of the advertisement, is of the view that

there is already specific and expressed condition made i.e. to

achieve the minimum cut-off marks by the respective categories

and then only, it has been decided to provide the marks of the

working experience. This is the basic condition inserted in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
14/32

advertisement.

9. So far as the different judgments as mentioned

above are concerned, it is necessary to quote the relevant paras.

Firstly, in case of Arjun Kumar (supra), its relevant para 16 to

25 reads as under:-

“16. The General Administration
Department had came out with two
clarificatory instructions contained in Memo
No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 and Memo No.
962 dated 22.01.2021, and in view o the
same petitioner has submitted that the
clarification made by the General
Administration Department if applied in
case of the petitioner, by adding 25 marks to
the marks which has been obtained being
36.25 percent of marks, the petitioner
qualifies for the second phase of the
examination cannot be sustained.
17. In the present Advertisement No. 11 of
2023, there is no separate preliminary and
mains examination but in the advertisement
itself there has been provision for grant of
weightage point in respect of work
experience as would appear from clause
3(ii)(d) putting condition that for being
qualified for second phase of the
recruitment process, the candidate must
have to obtain the minimum qualifying
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
15/32

marks in view of clause 3(i)(h). The
petitioner had applied in BC category and
has obtained 36.25 percentage of marks as
merit point and his normalized score is also
36.25 percentage of marks, whereas in view
of clause 3(i)(h) for being eligible for
second phase, a candidate has to obtain
minimum 36.50 percentage of marks and as
such in view of the petitioner not obtaining
the minimum qualifying marks, the
commission has found him as not qualified
for phase II and, as such, he didn't find
place in merit list.
18. I have given a serious consideration to
the two subsequent clarifications also in
respect of the advertisement dated
28.06.2023, I find that nowhere, the
clarification has changed the minimum
marks required to be obtained in first phase
of the examination. The petitioner too in
paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition has
not stated the very fact that irrespective of
the percentage of marks, which has been
prescribed in SubClause (h) in paragraph
no. 3 of the advertisement, 25 marks was to
be added. Admittedly, the petitioner has
obtained 36.25 percent, I find it proper to
reproduce the statement made in paragraph
no. 13 of the writ petition, which inter alia
is reproduced hereinafter:
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
16/32

"13. That is is also relevant to
mention here that thereafter general
administration department,
government of Bihar, issued a
clarification notification contained in
memo no. 12956 dated 16.08.2024
whereby and whereunder it has been
clarified that the marks has to be
added in both the phases, weitage i.e.
the weitage 25 marks has to be added
to the marks obtained in the written
examination conducted in the first
phase and the said weitage marks has
also to be given in the second phase
of the selection."
19. In course of argument, learned counsel
has tried to enlarge the scope of the
clarification by submitting that in any case,
the clarification in respect of paragraph no.
10(3) of the advertisement in respect of
having qualified for second phase of
examination would only mean that the
weightage has to be given to the number of
year considering the petitioner's experience
25 marks was required to be added first can
only be said to be misconceived in view of
the terms and conditions of the
advertisement and even considering the
clarification it cannot be said that in the
term of the advertisement calling for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
17/32

participating in the selection procedure any
deviation has been made following the
procedure prescribed in Clause 3 to Clause
3(i)(h) and noted it in the Notification.
20. It is made clear that minimum qualifying
marks is the benchmark for elimination of
the candidature and it can only mean that
the candidates, who obtain minimum marks
as contained in the terms and conditions of
Clause-10 of the advertisement then only
can qualify for the second phase and then up
to 25 marks weightage will be added for
giving weightage as per their experience,
who have rendered their service as
contractual employee.
21. The Apex Court in case of Union of
India vs. Mahendra Singh reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 909 decided on 25.07.2022,
upon considering the law laid has in clear
terms held that the candidature instructions
in the matter of selection and appointment
were required to be adhered strictly in terms
of the instructions. I find it apt to reproduce
paragraphs no. 16 and 17 of the aforesaid
judgment, which inter alia is as follows:
“16. The said principle has been
followed by this Court in Cherukuri
Mani v. ChieSecretary, Government of
Andhra Pradesh wherein this Court
held as under: “14. Where the law
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
18/32

prescribes a thing to be done in a
particular manner following a
particular procedure, it shall be done
in the same manner following the
provisions of law, without deviating
from the prescribed
procedure………….”
17. Similarly, this Court in Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai
(MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal12 and
OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis
Bank13 has followed the said
principle. Since the advertisement
contemplated the manner of filling up
of the application form and also the
attempting of the answer sheets, it has
to be done in the manner so
prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning
given by the Division Bench of the
High Court that on account of lapse
of time, the writ petitioner might have
attempted the answer sheet in a
different language is not justified as
the use of different language itself
disentitles the writ petitioner from any
indulgence in exercise of the power of
judicial review.”
12. (2020) 13 SCC 234
13. (2021) 6 SCC 707
22. The aforesaid principles laid down by
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
19/32

the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the
case in hand.
23. The petitioner, who is a Backward Class
candidate, having not obtained 36.5 percent
of the qualifying marks, in the first phase of
examination, I don't find that by
disqualifying the petitioners for phase-II, the
respondents have committed any illegality in
any manner or have deviated from the
instruction contained in the Advertisement
No. 11 of 2023.
24. I don't find any merit in the present writ
petition. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is dismissed.
25. There shall be no order as to cost.”

9.1. Secondly, in case of Dr. Shankar Pandit &

Ors. (supra), its relevant para 7 to 17 reads as under:-

“7. In reply to the said counter affidavit, it
has been stated on behalf of the petitioners
that Rule 4(a) of the 2010 Rules, as it
existed then, provided that all the Doctors
working in Additional Primary Health
Centers, Primary Health Centers and
Government Dispensaries would be in the
cadre of District Ayush Medical Cadre. It
has been stated that in terms of Rule 10 of
2010 Rules, the Doctors already working
prior to coming into force of the Rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
20/32

automatically stood included in the service.
8. The Commission in its counter affidavit
has simply stated that it is the policy of the
State Government, which has to prevail in
such matters and the Commission has no
role to play in respect of the dispute raised
by the petitioners in this case.
9. The basic facts that the petitioners were
working on contractual basis in Additional
Primary Health Centers and Primary
Health Centers are not in dispute. The only
issue, which requires determination in the
present case, is the effect of framing of the
2010 Rules, which came into force with
effect from 22.12.2010 and subsequent
amendments introduced in 2017 and 2019.
10. Originally, sub-Rule (e) of Rule 4 of
2010 Rules read as under : -
“(e) In the District Ayush Medical
Cadre, doctors shall be selected on
contract basis and shall work for at
least two years. On their satisfactory
services, extension of service may be
made. All posts of this Cadre shall be
filled on contract basis and no
permanent/temporary appointment
shall be on these posts. The services
shall be extended after satisfactory
performance. Doctors of this Cadre
can be transferred any where in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
21/32

concerned district.”
11. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 4 of 2010 Rules
reads as under :
“(a) All doctors working in
Additional Primary Health Center,
Primary Health Center and State
Dispensary (Ayurved, Unani &
Homeopathic) shall be in District
Ayush Medical Cadre. All Doctors
working in Referral Hospital,
SubDivisional Hospital, Sadar
Hospital, Hospitals of Medical
Colleges of Ayush sector. State
Ayurved & Unani Pharmacy and
research unit, Doctors of State Ayush
Medical Service
Specialist Sub-cadre of clause (b)of
Rule-5 of chapter -3, Incharge
Medical Officer, Dy Superintendents
and first Medical officer of PH.C and
Referral Hospital shall be in State
Ayush Medical Cadre.”
12. Rule 10 of the Rules read as under : -

“10. All Ayush Doctors appointed on
the basis of seniority and working
prior to the coming into force of these
Rules, shall be automatically deemed
to be included in this service.”
13. If the case of the petitioners is to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
22/32

accepted, by application of Rule 4(a) of the
Rules, they can be treated to be in District
Ayush Medical Cadre on contractual basis.
Sub-Rule (e) of Rule 4 was substituted by
amendment Rule 2017. The aforesaid
amendment in 2017, by no stretch of
imagination, can be said to be having a
consequence that persons working on
contractual basis under sub-rule (a) of Rule
4 shall automatically become permanent
employees under the Rules. The substituted
sub-Rule (e) of Rule 4 by amendment Rule
2017 was apparently for the purpose of
giving preference to those who were
working on contractual basis, after
adopting a process of selection as provided
therein.
14. If the petitioners are desirous of joining
District Ayush Medical Cadre Rules on
regular basis, they will have to undergo the
selection procedure as prescribed in sub-
Rule (e) of Rule 4 of the Rules.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find
the petitioners’ case to be tenable.
16. This application is accordingly
dismissed.
17. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.”

9.2. Thirdly, in case of Kameshwar Kumar & Ors.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
23/32

(supra), its relevant para 35 to 45 reads as under:-

“35. The learned Advocate for the
petitioners has further pointed out that by
notification no. 9359 dated 9th July 2014
issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, an
amendment has been made in the Bihar
Drivers (Appointment and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2005, under which the
drivers who have been legally engaged on a
contract basis in government departments
have been allowed for an age relaxation of
5 years, and the provisions were also
amended for additional marks on the basis
of their work experience.
36. The petitioners are entitled to get the
benefit of the said provision. In this regard,
the learned Advocate for the petitioners
refers to a decision in the case of Secretary,
H.S.E.B vs. Suresh & Ors. reported in
1999 (3) SCC 601. In Suresh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
consider the fate of the contract laborers on
the abolition of the contract labour system.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, placing
reliance on the Air India Statutory
Corporation, etc. vs. United Labour Union
& Ors. etc. reported in JT 1996 (11) SC
170, held as under: –
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
24/32

"In this behalf, it is necessary to
recapitulate that on abolition of the
contract labour system, by necessary
implication, the principal employer is
under statutory obligation to absorb
the contract labour. The linkage
between the contractor and the
employee stood snapped and direct
relationship stood restored between
principal employer and the contract
labour as its employees. Considered
from this perspective, all the workmen
in the respective services working on
contract labour are required to be
absorbed in the establishment of the
appellant.”
37. The learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other
hand, submits that the petitioners
challenged the advertisement 37/2023 dated
23rd August 2023 for appointment on the
post of driver in various State Departments
on the ground that they do not have any
knowledge of computer application and the
minimum educational qualification has
been raised from class 8 to matriculation
which many of the petitioners do not have
and thirdly, they were not granted
weightage as per the Rule.
38. It is submitted on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
25/32

respondents that the petitioners were not
asked to have computer knowledge as one
of the qualifications; on the other hand,
they were required to give a computer-
based test. The computer-based test means
the questions would appear on the computer
screen with multiple-choice answers, and
the candidates would be asked to click on
the correct answer. For this reason, no
knowledge in computer applications is
necessary. Secondly, it is submitted by the
learned Advocate for the respondents, and
in the considered view of this Court, rightly
submitted that the petitioners challenged
advertisement no. 37/2023 but did not
challenge the amendment of the
Recruitment Rule by virtue of which the
candidate’s academic qualification was
enhanced. Without challenging the Rule,
they are not entitled to any relief claimed in
paragraphs 1 & 2 of the writ petition. In
support of his contention, the learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents has placed reliance on an
unreported judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench in the case of Dr. Shankar Pandit
and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. in
CWJC 8115 of 2020 decided on 1st
October 2021. In the said writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for relief holding
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
26/32

and declaring that the petitioners, who were
appointed on contract basis in July/August,
2010 were included in the District Ayush
Medical cadre in terms of Rule-4 (a) and
Rule-10 of the Bihar District Ayush
Medical/State Ayush Medical Service
(Appointment on Regular/Contract Basis
and Service Conditions) Rule, 2010. The
Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the
various provisions of the Rule held in
paragraphs 13 & 14 as under: -
“13. If the case of the petitioners is to
be accepted, by application of Rule
4(a) of the Rules, they can be treated
to be in District Ayush Medical Cadre
on contractual basis. Sub-Rule (e) of
Rule 4 was substituted by amendment
Rule 2017. The aforesaid amendment
in 2017, by no stretch of imagination,
can be said to be having a
consequence that persons working on
contractual basis under subrule (a) of
Rule 4 shall automatically become
permanent employees under the
Rules. The substituted sub-Rule (e) of
Rule 4 by amendment Rule 2017 was
apparently for the purpose of giving
preference to those who were working
on contractual basis, after adopting a
process of selection as provided
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
27/32

therein.
14. If the petitioners are desirous of
joining District Ayush Medical Cadre
Rules on regular basis, they will have
to undergo the selection procedure as
prescribed in sub-Rule (e) of Rule 4 of
the Rules.”
39. It is further submitted by the learned
Advocate for the respondents that some of
the candidates/petitioners duly appeared in
the examination. They did not get the
minimum cutoff mark; therefore, they were
not entitled to get weightage as per the
Rule. In support of his contention, he refers
to an unreported decision of this Court in
the case of Arjun Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors. in CWJC No. 13951 of
2024 decided on 19th September 2024,
wherein it is observed in paragraph 20:-
“20. It is made clear that minimum
qualifying marks is the benchmark for
elimination of the candidature and it
can only mean that the candidates,
who obtain minimum marks as Patna
High Court CWJC No.13951 of 2024
dt.19-09-2024 contained in the terms
and conditions of Clause-10 of the
advertisement then only can qualify
for the second phase and then up to
25 marks weightage will be added for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
28/32

giving weightage as per their
experience, who have rendered their
service as contractual employee.”
40. In the instant case some of the
petitioners who appeared in the
examination did not even get the minimum
qualification marks in computer-
based/written examination.
41. It is further submitted by the learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents that in view of the decision in
Uma Devi’s case, reported in 2006(4) SCC
1, daily wage or temporary employees
cannot claim permanent absorption in the
absence of statutory rules providing such
absorption. However, as frequently
reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes
between appointments that are illegal and
those that are irregular. The later being
eligible for regularization if they meet
certain conditions.
42. In reply to such argument, learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners have placed reliance on an
unreported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of
2024 decided on 31st January 2025 and
urged that Uma Devi (supra) cannot serve
as a shield to justify exploitative
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
29/32

engagements persisting for years without the
Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows
no true contractor- based arrangement and
a consistent need for permanent staff, the
alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment,
though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
wage status or continued unfair practices.
43. Having heard the learned counsels for
the parties and on careful perusal of the
entire materials on record, it is found that
the petitioners never disputed that they were
appointed as daily wagers and till date their
status in employment is as a daily wager.
There is a difference between daily wage
laborers and contractual laborers. If an
employee is appointed directly by the
employer on contract against a vacant and
sanctioned post and performs his duty for a
considerable period of time, he is entitled to
be absorbed as per the existing rule of
appointment/absorption.
44. In the instant case most of the petitioners
do not have minimum educational
qualifications, they did not come forward for
the relief of amendment of their academic
qualification in the amended rule of
employment and to allow them to compete
the recruitment test on the basis of pen and
paper mode. Without such prayer, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
30/32

advertisement of recruitment of drivers in
different departments of the State
Government cannot be declared cancelled
by the writ court. The petitioners did not
come forward with a case that they were
absorbed in vacant sanctioned posts. Thus,
their appointment is absolutely fortuitous,
irregular and considering the nature of their
work, question of absorption in Government
employment does not arise at all.
45. For the reasons stated above, this Court
is not in a position to grant any relief to the
petitioners. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition is dismissed.”

9.3. Fourthly, in case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra),

its relevant para 29 & 30 reads as under:-

“29. We have considered the entire matter
in detail. In our opinion, it is too well
settled to need any further reiteration that
all appointments to public office have to be
made in conformity with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In other words, there
must be no arbitrariness resulting from any
undue favour being shown to any candidate.
Therefore, the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the
stipulated selection procedure.
Consequently, when a particular schedule is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
31/32

mentioned in an advertisement, the same
has to be scrupulously maintained. There
cannot be any relaxation in the terms and
conditions of the advertisement unless such
a power is specifically reserved. Such a
power could be reserved in the relevant
statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation
is provided in the rules, it must still be
mentioned in the advertisement. In the
absence of such power in the rules, it could
still be provided in the advertisement.
However, the power of relaxation, if
exercised, has to be given due publicity.
This would be necessary to ensure that
those candidates who become eligible due
to the relaxation, are afforded an equal
opportunity to apply and compete.
Relaxation of any condition in
advertisement without due publication
would be contrary to the mandate of
equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this
case will clearly show that there was no
power of relaxation. In our opinion, the
High Court committed an error in directing
that the condition with regard to the
submission of the disability certificate
either along with the application form or
before appearing in the preliminary
Patna High Court CWJC No.2937 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
32/32

examination could be relaxed in the case of
Respondent 1. Such a course would not be
permissible as it would violate the mandate
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.”

10. After going through the provisions of the

advertisement and the judgments quoted above, this Court is of

the firm view that the condition precedent has already been laid

down in the advertisement’s clause 5(ii)(g) which the petitioners

have failed to achieve and only after getting knowledge that they

got marks below cut-off, they challenged advertisement in the

writ. Petitioners have opted to participate in the examination

process and when they failed to achieve the minimum cut-off

marks, then only they challenged the same. Particularly, in the

light of the law laid down in the advertisement and ratio laid

down in various judgments quoted above, this Court is of the

firm view that there is no need of any interference in this matter.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23/04/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…