1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  2795-2797 OF 2017 CHANDRA GUPTA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.        Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.       Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2798-2800 OF 2017

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2801-2803 OF 2017

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2804 OF 2017 WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 367-369 OF 2016 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2795-2797 OF 2017

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2805 OF 2017 WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2806-2810 OF 2017 WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2811 OF 2017

2

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Status quo granted by this Court on 14.08.2015 in SLP (C) Nos. 22304-22306 of 2015 and SLP (C) Nos. 22947-22949  of  2015  shall  stand  modified  to  the effect that the State is permitted and directed to appoint 186 candidates, whose selection had already been completed.

2. After appointing those 186 candidates, the State is  further  permitted  and  directed  to  appoint  97 candidates, who have been selected pursuant to our order dated 20.04.2017.

3. However, we make it clear that if anyone of those candidates belonging to Paragraphs (1) and (2) above is  otherwise  ineligible  or  in  case  he/she  is otherwise  disqualified,  no  appointment  will  be offered to him/her.

4. The appellants approached this Court with certain grievances regarding selection and appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector.  The process started in the year  2004.   On  account  of  various  litigations,

3

unfortunately, the process of selection has still not been completed.  In one set of appeals, there is a dispute with regard to 186 candidates who had to be accommodated for adjusting 67 candidates belonging to OBC category, who had to be appointed on the basis of directions issued by the High Court.

5. On  14.08.2015,  this  Court  had  directed  the parties to maintain status quo.  As mentioned above, we have modified the interim order and permitted the State  to  continue  with  the  selection.   The  above modification  happens  to  be  issued  in  view  of  the developments which took place, which we have referred to  in  our  order  dated  20.04.2017,  which  reads  as follows:-

“In  pursuant  to  the  order  of  this Court  the  affidavit  has  been  filed before  this  Court  and  by  the  order dated 28.11.2011 passed by this Court it has been clarified that there are 223  candidates  eligible  for appointment  against  the  299  posts referred  to  in  the  order  dated 02.02.2011  since  they  are  all similarly  situated.  However,  it  is brought to the notice of this Court that in between there was appointment of  67  candidates  belonging  to  Most Backward  Classes  and  pursuant  to orders  passed  by  this  Court  on

4

12.10.2012 in order to maintain those 67 candidates roster point had to be adjusted and accordingly another 184 candidates  were  proposed  to  be appointed.  These  are  also  under challenge in the writ petitions.  

Be  that  as  it  may,  without prejudices  to  the  contention available to all the parties, for the time  being  we  direct  the  State  and the  Commission  to  proceed  with selection in respect of 299 posts by limiting  the  field  of  selection  to 2730-251  i.e.  2479  candidates.  We also  make  it  clear  that  if  any similarly  situated  person  has inadvertently been left out it will be open to such person to point out the same to the Competent Authority and his case will also be examined by the Authority. The selection process as above shall be completed within a period of three months from today and the  report  to  that  effect  shall  be filed before this Court within such time. Post on 1st August, 2017. In  all  other  respects,  status-quo operating as on today shall continue till then.”

6. Thereafter, this Court passed the following order on 03.05.2017 :-

5

“Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for  the  candidates  submit  that  the candidates who have already undergone and cleared the physical test may not be  subjected  to  the  physical  test again  along  with  the  written examination.  It  is  submitted  that almost  thirteen  years  have  passed after  the  physical  examination  and, therefore,  the  candidates  may  not have  the  same  standard  which  they acquired  thirteen  years  back. Therefore, it is submitted that even if  a  physical  test  is  conducted  it may be limited to the medical fitness of the candidates. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the State  seeks  some  time  to  get clarification......”

7. Thereafter, on 08.05.2017, this Court passed the following order :-

“With  reference  to  our  order  dated 03.05.2017,  the  learned  counsel appearing for the State has brought to our notice that  for the selection of 299 posts, the selection process is  in  progress  and  only  104 candidates  are  alone  left  for  the physical test.   Therefore,  without prejudice  to the contentions available to the parties,

6

for  the  time  being,  let  all candidates undergo the physical test. Though  there  is  a  serious  dispute with  regard  to  the  approach,  we direct that the remaining candidates will  undergo  the  physical  test without  prejudice  to  their contentions.”

8. The learned counsel appearing for the State has brought  to our  notice that  pursuant to  our orders referred  to  above,  out  of  3227  candidates recommended, 2192 candidates turned up for selection and out of whom, 232 were qualified.  Thereafter, in the  process of  selection, we  are informed  that 97 candidates  have  been  selected.   This  Court  has permitted those 97 candidates also to be appointed, after appointing 186 candidates referred to above.   

9. Of  the  vacancies  identified  by  this  Court  and which are referred to in the orders extracted above, we  find  that  there  are  still  200+  vacancies available.  In order to give a quietus to the whole disputes  and  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the process  of selection  started in  the year  2004, we direct  the  State  to  subject  those  1035  of  the recommended candidates, who did not turn up for the selection, also to the process of selection starting with  the physical  test, as  clarified in  our order

7

dated 03.05.2017.

10. Needless also to say that those 1035 candidates will  include  the  133  candidates,  if  not  otherwise included.

11. The selection process will be completed in three months.

12. We make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the selection already conducted pursuant to our order dated 20.04.2017.  In case anyone has any grievance with regard to the same, he shall be free to  take  recourse  to  any  other  remedy  before appropriate forum.

13. We  also  make  it  clear  that  this  Judgment  is passed  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  these  cases,  for doing complete justice and, therefore, it may not be treated as a precedent.

14. In view of the above, nothing survives in the contempt  petitions,  being  Contempt  Petition  Nos. 367-369  of 2016  in Civil  Appeal Nos.  2795-2797 of 2017, which are, accordingly, dismissed.

8

15. We  direct  the  Registry  that  it  shall  not entertain  any  petition/application,  either impleadment or reopening or review in respect of the selection of Sub-Inspectors for the year 2004 without express permission from this Court.

16. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.   

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; September 14, 2017.

9

REVISED ITEM NO.12               COURT NO.5               SECTION XVI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  2795-2797/2017 CHANDRA GUPTA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.             Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. & ORS.           Respondent(s) (impleading party)  (APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)  WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 367-369/2016 In C.A. No. 2795-2797/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2798-2800/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2801-2803/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2805/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2806-2810/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2804/2017 (XVI) C.A. No. 2811/2017 (XVI) Date : 14-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI Counsel for the  parties Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. M. K. Choudhary, Adv.  Mr. Yudhister Bhardwaj, Adv.  Mr. Harshul Singh, Adv.  Mr. Kritika Khurana, Adv.  Ms. Namita Choudhary, Adv.  Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Dhruv Kumar Jha, Adv.  Ms. Nooreen Sarna, Adv.  Ms. Azra Rehman, Adv.  Mr. Kiran Kumar Jaipuriar, AOR Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Adv.  Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv.

10

Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.  Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.  Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv.  Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv.  Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.  Mr. Hassan Zubar Waris, Adv.  Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv.  Mr. Akshat Srivastava, Adv.  Mr. Akshay Sinha, Adv.  Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv.  Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv.  Mr. Himanshu Munshi, Adv.  Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.  Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.  Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv.  Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.  Mr. Chakrapani, Adv.  Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv.  Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Kumar Ranjan, Adv.  Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Adv.  Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.  Mr. Vivek Vardhan, Adv.  Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.  Ms. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv.  Mr. Saurabh Sanchita, Adv.  Ms. Manju Sharma Jetley, Adv.  

                                       Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR                     

Ms. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR                     Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR                     Ms. Udita Singh, AOR                     Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, AOR

Ms. Reena Pandey, AOR                                   Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR                     

11

                   Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR                      

   UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The civil appeals are disposed of and the contempt petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.   

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)