[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rina Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12528 of 2021
======================================================
Rina Kumari D/o Late Sheo Kumar Ojha, R/o-C/o-Rajesh Kumar Ojha,
Masjid Lane, Badi Khanjarpur, Jagdishpur, P.S.-Barari, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission.
4. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, S.C.8
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar Public
Service Commission ('B.P.S.C." in short).
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the
following relief(s):
"1. That this application is being filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction
upon the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC)
to declare the petitioner successful in the 64th
Combined Competitive Examination as she has got
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
2/13
514 marks which is more than the cut off marks of
513.
1/A. That the petitioners further pray for issuance of
an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the
part of the letter dated 17.06.2021 in which the
objection of the petitioner has been disposed of as
follows:-
"lqJh jhuk dqekjh] vuqØekad&570183] es/kk Øekad&1650 }kjk
dsoy vkiwfrZ fujh{kd] Je izoZu inkf/kdkjh] iz[kaM iapk;r jkt
inkf/kdkjh ,oa iz[kaM vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr
dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh ds inks ds fy, vf/kekurk dk vadu vius
vkosnu ds lkj izi=&II ¼?kks'k.kk½ esa fd;k x;k gSA mDr inksa ds
vUrxZr vukjf{kr ¼01½ efgyk dksfV esa p;fur vafre mEehnokj
es/kk Øekad&1565 ij vofLFkr gSaA mDr inksa ds fy, de
izkIrkad jgus ds dkj.k budk p;u ugha gqvkA"
1/B. That the petitioner further prays for issuance of
any other appropriate writ/order/direction to which
he is found entitled to."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the B.P.S.C.
came out with an advertisement on 2.8.2018 for the 64th
Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination for filling up
1255 vacancies of 19 different posts. The petitioner appeared
and having qualified in both the preliminary and mains
examination, was called for interview. She appeared for
interview on 10.2.2021.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to the
unreserved (female) category and the cut off as per the B.P.S.C.
for the said category is 513 marks. Inspite of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
3/13
having secured 514 marks ie more than the cut off marks, the
petitioner was not declared successful. As such, the petitioner
filed her objection on 10.6.2021 addressed to the Controller of
Examination, B.P.S.C. which was rejected vide order contained
in letter dated 17.6.2021, impugned herein.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that subsequent to the advertisement
for the 64th Combined Competitive Examination published on
2.8.2018
, the B.P.S.C. came out with a corrigendum on
5.11.2018 whereby the cut off age for four category of posts ie
(i) Supply Inspector (ii) Labour Enforcement Officer (iii) Block
S.C./S.T. Welfare Officer and (iv) Block Panchayati Raj Officer
was increased. The petitioner, who was not able to apply earlier,
as a result of change in the age limit of these four posts for the
petitioner's category of unreserved (female) being from
1.8.1975 to 31.7.1981, the petitioner applied.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the B.P.S.C. did not disclose the method of
selection nor the reason for the petitioner's non selection. As
would be evident from the letters brought on record by way of
annexures in the interlocutory application addressed to the
petitioner in response to her application under the R.T.I. Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
2005, it is submitted that posts are still vacant. As such, the
petitioner having secured more marks than the last selected
candidate of her category, the B.P.S.C. be directed to
recommend for her appointment. In support of his contention,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 1.3.2021 passed in CWJC no.3952
of 2020 (Swati Chaturvedi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.).
Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal preferred by
the State of Bihar against this judgment in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2021 passed in
S.L.A. (C) no.11174 of 2021 (The State of Bihar vs. Swati
Chaturvedi and Ors.).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
many of the successful candidates not having joined on their
respective posts, vacancies still exist where the petitioner can be
appointed. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)
and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and
others; (2008) 17 SCC 703. As such, it is submitted that the writ
application be allowed with a direction to the respondents to
declare the petitioner successful in the 64th Combined
Competitive Examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
8. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the B.P.S.C. submitted that the advertisement for
appointment on 1255 different posts in different departments of
the Government of Bihar was published on 2.8.2018. Originally
the cut off date for age being 1.8.2018, the petitioner could not
apply for the reason of her being over age. Subsequently on the
B.P.S.C. coming out with a corrigendum with the change in cut
off date for age in four categories of service, the petitioner
applied in those four categories.
9. It is submitted that a combined merit list was prepared
wherein the name of the petitioner figured on Sl. no.1650. The
last selected candidate in the unreserved (female) category to
which the petitioner belongs was placed at Sl. no.1565. Thus, on
account of the petitioner having obtained less marks than the
last selected candidate for the said four posts, the petitioner was
not selected.
10. Learned Senior counsel for the B.P.S.C. further
submitted that so far as the other 15 services are concerned,
there was no change in the cut off date for age with respect to
them and the petitioner being over age could not apply against
those 15 services and was not considered for them. Referring to
the petitioner's application and more particularly the declaration
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
in Prapatra II, it is submitted that the petitioner clearly mentions
the four services wherein she is making the application. The
note therein with the title 'important' clearly provides that the
services against which a cross (x) has been placed, candidature
of the applicant will not be considered for them and persons
whose name figured below the applicant in the merit list may be
considered for the said services in case of any vacancies
remaining. It was submitted that so far as the remaining 15
services were concerned, the petitioner had put a cross against
the same not for the reason that she was not interested but for
the reason that she was not eligible to apply on account of her
being over age.
11. It is finally submitted by the learned Senior counsel
for the B.P.S.C. that so far as the vacancies with respect to non
joining is concerned, Clause 4(xiv) of the letter /guidelines
dated 17.6.1977 of the Department of Personnel, Government of
Bihar clearly provides that vacancies remaining unfilled due to
candidates not joining the post or for any other reason shall be
carried forward to the next year. Further, while the present
application arises out of the 64th Combined Competitive
Examination conducted in the year 2021, thereafter the B.P.S.C.
has also conducted the 65th, 66th, 67th, 68th and 69th Combined
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
Competitive Examination and the 70th Combined Competitive
Examination is going on. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Subodh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.; 2012 (2) PLJR 647.
12. In response, it is submitted by Mr. Abhijit Anand,
learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the 66th Combined
Competitive Examination, the candidate who secured 519 marks
was selected as the last selected candidate in her category had
obtained 518 marks. Learned counsel submits that there is no
transparency in the process of selection and further reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High
Court and others; (2025) 2 SCC 1.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
14. The relevant facts in brief are that the B.P.S.C.
came out with an advertisement on 2.8.2018 for appointment on
1255 posts in different departments under the 64 th Combined
(Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2018. The last date for
filling up the form online was 31.8.2018 which was extended by
different notices till 10.9.2018.
15. The petitioner being over age could not apply against
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
any of the 19 posts mentioned in the advertisement. The
B.P.S.C. came out with two corrigendums on 6.8.2018 and on
14.8.2018 enhancing the vacancies to be filled up to 1465.
Thereafter the B.P.S.C. came out with a corrigendum on
5.11.2018 (Annexure P/1 to I.A. no.1 of 2025) stating therein
that for the four posts of Supply Inspector, Labour Enforcement
Officer, Block S.C./S.T. Welfare Officer and Block Panchayati
Raj Officer, the age limit was changed. For the category of the
petitioner ie unreserved (female), the change in the age was
made from 1.8.1975 to 31.7.1981. It further provided that those
persons who had not been able to file their applications on
account of being over age, could do so now for the said four
posts. It was pursuant thereto that the petitioner filed her
application.
16. The petitioner was successful in the preliminary and
the mains examination and on being called, appeared for
interview on 10.2.2021. On the B.P.S.C. coming out with the
results, the petitioner did not find herself to be selected.
17. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that
having secured 514 marks which was more than 513 marks
obtained by the last person selected in the petitioner's category
of unreserved (female), the petitioner should have been selected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
18. In response, it has been submitted by the B.P.S.C.
that so far as the four posts against which the petitioner filed her
application, the last person who was selected in the petitioner's
category of unreserved (female) was placed at sl. no.1565 while
the petitioner's position in the merit list was at sl. no.1650.
19. It may be stated here that inspite of a copy of the
counter affidavit of the B.P.S.C. having been served on learned
counsel for the petitioner, no affidavit in response has been filed
contradicting the said statement.
20. It may also be noted that so far as the statement
with respect to the petitioner having obtained 514 marks and the
cut off marks in the petitioner's category being 513 is
concerned, the said statement made in the writ petition is
conveniently vague in so far as it does not state that the cut off
marks of 513 is with respect to a person selected against any of
the four posts wherein the petitioner was an applicant. It may be
stated here that a person of the petitioner's category
[unreserved(female)] for the remaining 15 posts wherein the
petitioner could not apply because of being over age, if such a
person has obtained 513 marks and has got selected, the same is
not relevant for the purpose of the petitioner's case.
21. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
(I.A. no.1 of 2025) seeking permission to place additional
documents/RTI reply etc. along with the judgments of this Court
as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the petitioner's
contention on record. The said application was allowed by order
dated 27.1.2026.
22. It may be observed here that without there being
any pleading whatsoever, referring to the letter dated 13.2.2025
of the Public Information Officer, B.P.S.C. addressed to the
petitioner, learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to contend
that inspite of one Shruti Sujan having given her 20 th preference
for the post of BSCW, she got the same whereas the petitioner
did not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again tried to
raise the same in his written submissions.
23. It may be stated here that in absence of the
pleadings, no evidence by way of annexure can be considered.
In this context, reference may be made to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead)
by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others; (1987) 2
SCC 555, Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
(1988) 4 SCC 534, National Textile Corporation Limited vs.
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others;(2011) 12 SCC 695
and Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another;(2012) 8
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
SCC 148.
24. It may nevertheless be observed here that what is
relevant is not the serial number of the preference for which
Shruti Sujan opted for the service of BSCW but what was her
merit position in the combined merit list. At the cost of
repetition, it may be stated that specific pleading of the B.P.S.C.
that while the petitioner stood at merit sl. no.1650, the last
selected candidate in the petitioner's category for the four posts
which the petitioner had opted was placed at merit sl. no.1565,
has not been contested by the petitioner.
25. The petitioner has relied on the judgments in the
case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High
Court & others, (2025) 2 SCC 1. Reliance has been placed
particularly on paragraph nos.29 to 34 of the judgment which
deals with an earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another, (2008) 3 SCC 512. It is submitted that 64th Combined
Competitive Examination is silent on the procedure adopted for
preparing the merit list. In the opinion of the Court, the facts of
the said case are distinguishable and have no application in the
present case. In the said case, after a select list of candidates
who had qualified both in the written examination and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
interview had been prepared, the High Court took a decision to
reduce the marks of the written examination from 100 to 75 and
taking 25 marks for interview prepared a fresh select list. In this
select list, the High Court also introduced minimum qualifying
marks for the interview as a result of which the candidates who
had been selected in the first select list prepared were excluded
in the second list. They challenged the same in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered.
It may only be observed that the facts of this case bears no
resemblance to the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra)
and thus is of no assistance to the petitioner.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Purushottam vs.
Chairman, M.S.E.B. and another; (1999) 6 SCC 49, State of
U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj; (2000) 3 SCC 699 and State of
Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Sat Pal; (2013)11 SCC 737
to submit that if a candidate is entitled for appointment and has
approached the Court in time, he cannot be deprived of the
remedy because the selection list has expired during litigation.
27. It may be observed here that no interim order has
been passed in favour of the petitioner. Further, the merit serial
number of the petitioner being much lower to the last selected
Patna High Court CWJC No.12528 of 2021 dt.09-02-2026
candidate in her category for the four posts on which the
petitioner is an applicant, the instant judgments are of no
assistance to the petitioner till she is able to show that her
position is higher than the last selected candidate in the merit
list.
28. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and specially that so far as the four
posts on which the petitioner filed her application, the last
selected candidate being at merit sl. no.1565 while the
petitioner's merit sl. no. stood at 1650, in the opinion of the
Court, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any
relief.
29. The Court finds no merit in the instant case.
30. The writ application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 27.01.2026
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date
