Specific orders and peculiar background cannot be treated as precedent under Jurisdiction of Article 142: SC
Nirbhay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 2870)
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 227, 225, 582, 591, 592 of 2019, 106 of 2020, 1451 of 2019, 273 of 2020, SLP (C) No. 4370 of 2020, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 278, 345, 433 and 419 of 2020
Decided on 11th June, 2020
Counsel for Petitioners: Shri Jayant Bhushan and other counsel
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Shivam Singh
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice M.R. Shah decided that appointment of 133 candidates are passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated as a Precedent.
The brief facts of the case mainly include the appointment of people on the post of Sub-inspector. The petitioners were claiming that they should be provided parity for the appointment of the Sub-Inspector post with the candidates who were appointed under Orders of this Court. The petitioners claimed that they should be only subjected to Medical test and not physical test.
The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioners should not be subjected to physical test. 133 candidates had claimed the parity with 186 candidates who were decided to be appointed by State of Bihar without subjecting to any test, same benefit ought to be extended to the Petitioners also they being similarly situated to 133 candidates who were directed to be appointed as against selection for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector. They further submitted that although the petitioners did not appeared for the physical test in pursuance of advertisement nos. 511/2011, there are still 67 posts vacant that can accommodate the petitioners.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Commission submits that order dated 24.10.2018 of this Court was confined to only 133 candidates and this Court having clearly stated that the order shall not be treated as precedent, no other person can claim same benefit. He reiterated that the Petitioners are the candidates who either did not appear in the physical test in pursuance of 2011 selection or participated and failed. Since their names were not included in select list of 97 which select list was prepared after conducting the physical test and the written test.
The Court, regarding the selection and appointment of 133 candidates and relying on the order dated 24th October, 2018 stated that:
The selection and appointment of 133 candidates are passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated as a Precedent. (Para 16)
The court also observed regarding the selection of the candidates that:
This Court having carved out and classified 133 candidates into a specific category and placed them along with 186 candidates, there cannot be any other procedure than the medical examination. Therefore, to remove any doubt on this aspect, we make it clear that the only remaining process to be undergone by the 133 candidates is the process to which the 186 candidates were subjected to. The State and the Selection Commission are directed to complete the process positively on or before 01.11.2018 and issue the appointment orders subject, of course, to candidates passing the medical fitness test. We make it clear that this order and all the earlier orders regarding the selection and appointment of the 133 candidates are passed in the peculiar background of the litigation starting from the advertisement in the year 2004 and several rounds of litigations during the past fourteen years, in exercise of our jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same shall not be treated as a precedent. (Para 15)
The court finally held the following for treating the appointment of the other 133 candidates on the post as a precedent:
1. The order when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent, no benefit could be claimed of the said order by the writ Petitioner in the present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ Petitioners were not able to satisfy this Court that when they had either not undertaken the physical test or failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage (Para 17)
2. The Court by order clearly indicated that in event the State of Bihar did not accede to the representation of applicants claiming similar relief to candidates that shall not give rise to any proceedings in any of the Courts. (Para 20)
The petition was dismissed.
View/download judgement: Nirbhay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Nishant Aryaman
