Waitlisted Candidate Cannot Claim Appointment After Panel Lapses: Patna High Court In Civil Court Clerk Recruitment Case
The Court noted that candidates who remain silent and seek parity only after others succeed in litigation are treated as “fence-sitters” and are not entitled to equitable relief.
The Patna High Court has held that a candidate cannot seek appointment to the post of a Clerk on the basis of an expired select panel by approaching the Court after an inordinate delay.
The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction does not protect those who remain passive and assert claims only after other litigants succeed. The Bench while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the High Court administration set aside the Single Judge’s order directing consideration of a candidate for appointment as Clerk in the Civil Courts of Bihar.
It was emphasised that candidates who remain silent and seek parity only after others succeed in litigation are treated as “fence-sitters” and are not entitled to equitable relief. The Court clarified that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit repetition of illegality nor a ‘negative equality’ conferring a right merely because persons with lesser marks were appointed pursuant to earlier judicial orders obtained by vigilant litigants.
Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha observed, “The relevant consideration is not whether he approached the Court before or after the appellate judgment, but whether he asserted his rights within the period when the cause of action was alive. In the present case, the cause of action arose during the validity of the panel, yet the respondent failed to act within that period. The distinction between vigilant litigants and fence-sitters is thus clearly borne out from the record. The earlier writ petitioners were vigilant and approached the Court at the appropriate time, whereas the respondent remained passive and approached the Court only after a considerable lapse of time. The fact that he filed the writ petition before the appellate decision does not erase the delay which had already occurred”.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct of the respondent reflects that he chose to remain on the sidelines and did not assert his rights when the opportunity was available. It is only after considerable delay that he approached the Court seeking parity with those who had been vigilant. Such conduct squarely attracts the doctrine of fence-sitting as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Piyush Lall appeared for the appellants and S. Raza Ahmad, AAG appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, recruitment was conducted pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2016 for clerical posts in Bihar’s civil courts. The respondent had participated in the selection process and secured 74.25 marks. Though he narrowly missed selection in the unreserved category, his name appeared in the waiting list. He claimed that several vacancies arose due to non-joining of selected candidates and that similarly situated candidates were later appointed following earlier Division Bench judgments.
The candidate approached the High Court seeking similar relief, pursuant to which the Single Judge through an order dated July 09, 2022 allowed the writ petition and directed authorities to consider his case for appointment by extending the same benefit granted to other candidates.
Challenging the order, the appellants contended that the select panel prepared in 2018 had a statutory validity of two years under the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & IV) Rules, 2009, and expired on September 26, 2020. Since the respondent approached the Court long after expiry of the panel, his claim was barred by delay and laches. It was further argued that earlier judgments granting relief were confined to candidates who had approached the Court during the subsistence of the panel and could not be extended universally.
Accepting these submissions, the Division Bench held that although proceedings under Article 226 are not governed by strict limitation, the principles of delay and acquiescence apply with full force. The Court observed that the respondent had failed to assert his rights while the panel remained valid and approached the Court nearly two years after its expiry.
The Bench also took note of subsequent recruitment initiated under Advertisement No. 01 of 2022 and observed that issuing directions based on an expired selection process would unsettle the ongoing recruitment and prejudice third-party rights.
While taking note of the precedents on the subject matter, the Bench held, “…The respondent’s case stands on no better footing and, in fact, suffers from the same infirmity. The submission that the authorities themselves were at fault in not operating the panel in terms of Rule 7 does not entitle the respondent to seek relief after the expiry of the panel. Even assuming there was an illegality on the part of the authorities, the law is well settled that such illegality must be challenged within a reasonable time. A litigant cannot be permitted to sleep over his rights and thereafter seek equitable relief at his convenience”.
On the third issue that whether appointment could be claimed due to lower-ranked candidates being appointed, the Court held that no such right exists. The benefit of earlier judgments was limited to specific litigants (in personam) and cannot be extended to all.
On the fourth issue that whether the Single Judge’s order suffered from legal infirmity, the Court held that the Single Judge misapplied the law by treating earlier judgments as universally applicable, and relying on impermissible parity (negative equality). “…this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the same proceeds on an erroneous application of legal principles, extends the benefit of earlier judgments beyond their intended scope, and overlooks material aspects relating to delay, laches and the statutory framework governing the field. The reasoning so adopted does not stand to judicial scrutiny and has resulted in an unwarranted direction for consideration of the writ petitioner’s case”, it noted.
Cause Title: The Patna High Court through its Registrar General & Ors. v. Chandan Kumar & Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No.891 of 2025
Appearances:
Appellants: Piyush Lall, Advocate.
Respondents: S. Raza Ahmad, AAG, Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG, Kumar Kaushik, Hemant Raj, Advocates.