Patna High Court
The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection CommissionversusVinay Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, upholding the single judge’s order directing consideration of the petitioner.
Summary
The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) appealed against a single judge’s order that directed the State to consider Vinay Kumar, a daily‑wage driver, for inclusion in the list of candidates for a vehicle‑driver post. Kumar had passed the written test but was denied marks for driving experience because his employment was not as a contractual driver, as required by the recruitment notification. The single judge had ordered the State to grant weightage to daily‑wage drivers and to consider Kumar’s case within 90 days. The BSSC argued that the notification expressly limited experience marks to contractual drivers, while the State pointed to a subsequent memo granting Kumar the requested weightage. The High Court noted that the memo had already been acted upon, that the parties had not disclosed this fact earlier, and invoked the principle of clean hands, ultimately refusing to interfere with the lower court’s order and dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a daily‑wage driver is entitled to experience marks under a recruitment advertisement that specifies contractual drivers.
- Whether the single judge’s order directing the State to consider the petitioner should be set aside on the ground that the notification was not considered.
- Whether the Commission is bound to implement the weightage after the State’s memo directing consideration of the petitioner.
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the basis of non‑disclosure of material facts and the doctrine of clean hands.
Subjects
- recruitment
- driver selection
- experience marks
- daily wage driver
- letters patent appeal
- clean hands
- equity
- administrative discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.491 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4890 of 2020
======================================================
1. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission P.O. Veterinary College
Patna - 14.
2. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Veterinary College, Patna - 14
through the Secretary.
3. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Veterinary College,
Patna- 14.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Vinay Kumar Son of Ramshankar Singh, resident of village- Rajkhand, P.S-
Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur.
2. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aastha Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Kanupriya, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG 3
For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 18-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellants Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna and its
authorities (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
2/7
challenging the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 4890 of 2020. Prayer of the
petitioner in the writ petition was for a direction to the
respondent authorities to include his name in the list of selected
candidates at the appropriate place which was published by the
respondent Commission vide Memo No. 2478/Aa dated
27.09.2019; and also permit the petitioner to participate in the
driving test and interview on the ground that the petitioner had
passed the written examination and has experience of driving of
more than seven years in the Circle Office, Aurai, District
Muzaffarpur for which the petitioner had submitted his
experience certificate duly issued by the Circle Officer in the
prescribed format in the office of the Commission.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission-
respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it is stated that the allocation of marks
has been prescribed in the following manner:- the written test
carries 75 marks and against the work experience of the duly
contractual Niyojit Vehicle Driver in the offices of Bihar
Government, total 25 marks, with the clear stipulation that for
driving experience of each year, five marks is to be given upto
maximum 25. It is further stated that the petitioner, Vinay
Kumar, who comes under Unreserved category, appeared in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
3/7
written test and obtained 44.75 marks, which is of course above
the minimum qualifying marks of 40% fixed for General
Category candidates. However, the petitioner was working as
daily wage driver in the Circle Office, Aurai and the certificate
issued by the Circle Office does not entitle him to get marks
under the heading of Driving Experience as the work
experience of the petitioner does not fall under the category of
Niyojit Vehicle Driver of the Government of Bihar. Therefore,
the marks under the heading of ‘driving experience’ has not
been awarded to the petitioner and since the petitioner could not
secure the minimum qualifying marks of 55 for being called to
the driving test and interview, therefore his name did not find
place in the list of eligible candidates who have been called for
driving test.
The learned Single Judge in the impugned order
has been pleased to hold as follows:
“6. In the light of the submission made by the
parties, it transpires to this Court that at the time
of drafting of the said advertisement, the authority
particularly the Secretary and other officials must
be taken into consideration that this advertisement
has come in the light of Hon’ble Court’s order,
therefore, the facts and circumstances under which
this Court has passed order must be taken care of
and the truth is that C.W.J.C. No. 8566 of 2007
with analogous cases had been filed by the daily
wage drivers. M.J.C. 3375 of 2013 has also arisen
from the said C.W.J.C. No. 8566 of 2007, therefore,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
4/7
this advertisement must cover all those drivers who
were daily wagers but in the said advertisement,
only contractual drivers has been taken into
consideration. As such, this Court direct the
Respondent No. 2 i.e. The Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna to consider the case of the
petitioner, on their representation within 90 days
from the date of filing the same by the petitioner
within 30 days, and issue proper instruction to
B.S.S.C. to consider the case of the petitioner.”
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed
reliance on the notification dated 09.07.2014 issued by the
General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
wherein it is stated that 75 marks is prescribed for written
examination and 25 marks for the work experience of motor
driving of drivers legally appointed on the basis of contract in
any office of the State Government, with clarification that 5
marks is to be awarded for work experience of the motor driving
of each year, maximum 25 marks. On that basis the aforesaid
notification, the advertisement (Annexure P/4) has been issued
and since the petitioner was not engaged as Driver (contractual
basis), therefore, he was rightly not awarded 25 marks even
though he produced certificate from the Circle Office. The
learned Single Judge has not considered such important aspect
while passing the impugned order and therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
5/7
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Vinay Kumar contended that a counter affidavit has
been filed in the present Letters Patent Appeal by the respondent
and a photocopy of Memo No. 14946 dated 19.09.2024 has
been brought on record as Anneuxre R/1 which clearly shows
that in compliance with the impugned order dated 01.05.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge, the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of the General Administration Department has
already issued a letter addressed to the Secretary, Bihar Staff
Selection Commission, Patna (Appellants) contained in Memo
No. 14946 dated 19.09.2024 whereby and whereunder he
directed/requested to the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, Patna to consider the case of the respondent for
grant of weightage as daily wager driver and also requested to
recommend for appointment of the respondent to the concerned
District Magistrate.
5. It would be relevant to observe that the
Commission is only a recruiting agency facilitating the
recruitment process and the requisitioning authority is the State,
who is the ultimate employer. Once a decision has been taken to
extend weightage a daily wager driver to the petitioner in view
of the order of the learned Single Judge, the recruiting agency is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
6/7
bound to follow or get a clarification from the State.
6. This Court also finds that the afore noted letter
was addressed to the Commission on 19.09.2024 itself much
prior to filing of the LPA on 28.04.2025 but this fact has also not
been disclosed and has been brought by the writ petitioner in his
counter affidavit. It is expected that parties must disclose all the
relevant facts to uphold fairness.
In the case of Tomorrowland Limited Vrs.
Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited &
Another in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 19, it has been held
as follows:
“56. It needs no emphasis that whosoever comes to
the court claiming equity, must come with clean
hands. The expression “clean hands” connotes that
the suitor or the defendant have not concealed
material facts from the court and there is no
attempt by them to secure illegitimate gains. Any
contrary conduct must warrant turning down relief
to such a party, owing to it not acting in good faith
and beguiling the court with a view to secure
undue gain. A court of law cannot be the abettor of
inequity by siding with the party approaching it
with unclean hands. This also brings to mind the
oft-quoted legal maxim—he who seeks equity must
do equity.”
7. Furthermore, the aforesaid letter is not under
challenge. Since the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge has already been acted upon and Annexure R/1 has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.491 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
7/7
already been issued, which is appended to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR N/A
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 21.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…