Dismissed¶29

Md. Masoom Ansari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (High Court of Judicature at Patna) – Recruitment

Patna HC16 Jan 2024CWJC/617/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PATNA HC CWJC No.617 of 2019 (decided 16-01-2024) — Md. Masoom Ansari v. State of Bihar & BSSC — appointment sought as Junior Engineer, WRD pursuant to BSSC Advertisement No. 0411/2011 — petitioner scored 117.40, below M.B.C. cut-off of 117.60 — held: no discrimination, equal treatment to all candidates; setting selection standards is the Commission's discretion, no judicial interference — writ petition dismissed. Keywords: BSSC recruitment, cut-off marks, judicial restraint, selection standard, MBC category, Junior Engineer WRD.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the petitioner's non-selection was not a case of discrimination and that equal treatment was accorded to all candidates. ¶26

Md. Masoom Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.617 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Masoom Ansari Son of Md. Sanaullah Ansari Resident of Nakchhed Tola,P.S. Motihari,Dist.-Motihari,E.Champaran

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar and Ors

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary Water Resources Department,Sinchai Bhawan,Patna-800015

¶8

The Chairman,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Govt. of Bihar,Veterinary College,Patna-800014

¶9

The Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Govt. of Bihar,Veterinary College,Patna 800014

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi Mrs. Archana Sinha Mr. Vinod Kumar Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.Harish Kumar -Gp8 Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, AC to GP-7 For the BSSC : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Adv ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶13

7 16-01-2024

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer, Water Resources Department (for brevity “WRD”), Government of Bihar, Patna pursuant to the Advertisement No. 0411/2011 issued by Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BSSC”)

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement, there were total 42 posts but appointment has

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.617 of 2019(7) dt.16-01-2024 2/3

¶18

been made only on 35 posts. Counsel submits that the petitioner has achieved marks 117.40 whereas candidates getting less marks has also been appointed.

¶19

Counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner belongs to most backward category but then also his selection was intentionally not made by the respondent BSSC.

¶20

Counsel for BSSC has filed supplementary counter affidavit and in the said counter affidavit it has been mentioned that as per the advertisement total 42 post of Junior Engineer, Mechanical in WRD department, Patna has been published. But, out of 32 posts, 15 posts were for unreserved category, 5 posts were for OBC, 5 posts for EBC, 5 posts for OBC Woman, 6 posts for S.T. Category and 8 posts for S.T. Category.

¶21

Counsel submits that in Clause-7(IV), it was categorically mentioned that the case of disabled category shall be considered only after production of disability certificate and it is due to this reason in the advertisement at the top, total post for unreserved has been shown.

¶22

Counsel further submits that since the petitioner is claiming for M.B.C. Category for whom the cut off marks were 117.60 whereas petitioner obtained 117.40. As such he received marks which is below the cutoff marks and only due to this

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.617 of 2019(7) dt.16-01-2024 3/3

¶24

reason, he was not selected for the said post.

¶25

In the light of the submissions made, this Court is

¶26

of the view that it is not the case of discrimination rather equal treatment has been taken place with all the candidates.

¶27

In response, counsel for the petitioner submits that there is one post still vacant in the M.B.C category. Therefore, petitioner may be directed to be appointed.

¶28

This Court is of the view that fixing standard for selection is the discretion of the commission and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the standard fixed for selection.

¶29

As such, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶31

Sunnykr/-

¶32

Md. Masoom Ansari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Masoom Ansari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Vinita Kumari Alias Vinita Devi Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Rai and Ors. Vs Sakal Rai and Ors.

Anju Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Jayshree Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.