Submission Of Original Documents During Interview Is Not Mandatory When Already Obtained During Probation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that submitting original documents at the interview stage is not mandatory as it is neither related to one’s qualification nor eligibility.
The Court allowed the Appeals filed by several candidates who were on the merit list but were not appointed due to a delay in producing original documents during the interview. The Court directed the Respondents to accommodate the candidates.
The Bench comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice K. V. Viswanathan observed, “This Court was of the opinion that the plea of non-submission of the originals at the time of interview is neither related to the qualification nor eligibility and a verification and vigilance report is anyway obtained by the State during probation. Therefore, the production of the original was not a mandatory condition. The stand of the BPSC had materially resulted in the dis-qualification of candidates who were otherwise in the merit list. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed that the rejection of candidature was improper, unjustified and not warranted”.
Advocate Aditya Singh-1 appeared for the Appellants, and Advocate Azmat Hayat Amanullah appeared for the Respondents.
In the 30th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, two candidates, the Appellant and Vikramaditya Mishra, participated in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position. The Appellant belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, while Vikramaditya Mishra was an unreserved Category 3 candidate. Both candidates passed the preliminary and main examinations with scores higher than their respective category cut-offs. However, their candidature was rejected during the interview because they did not present the original character certificates and instead submitted true photocopies. As a result, the Appellant, Vikramaditya Mishra and Aarav Jain were disqualified from the selection process. Aditi applied for the 31st Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in a separate incident. Still, she was rejected because she did not possess a law degree certificate on the interview day. Similarly, Ankita's candidature was canceled for the same reason but was granted relief by the High Court due to a vacancy in the SC category. Unfortunately, Aditi was not granted the same relief because there was no vacancy in the EWS category. Several Civil Appeals were filed, challenging the judgment passed by the High Court and the official Respondents' decision to reject the appellants' candidature due to the non-furnishing of original character certificates and law degree certificates. In the appeal, Jyoti Joshi filed an application for intervention, seeking directions for her appointment to implement a judgment passed by the High Court. However, the Court dismissed her intervention application as she was on the waiting list, not the merit list. The civil appeals filed in the case of Aarav Jain were decided in favor of the candidates and against the employer, and the order was already implemented.
The Court noted that there were two issues to ascertained, “i) Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the appellants due to non-production of the original certificate at the time of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BPSC”) is justified? ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, what relief can be granted to the appellants?”
The Bench reviewed the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955 (Rules, 1955), and Advertisement. The Bench emphasized that while Rule 7(b) states that a candidate must demonstrate to the BPSC that they possess the necessary character traits for the position, Rule 9 outlines the required documents to be submitted, including educational qualifications, character certificates from previous colleges attended, references from two known individuals, a medical certificate, and a certificate of practice duration from the relevant authorities. The Court emphasized that these documents must be true copies of the originals, certified by a gazetted officer. The candidate may also be required to produce the originals during the viva voce test.
The Bench has determined that a candidate's character is an essential factor in the BPSC selection process, and they must possess a character certificate that may be requested during the interview. However, the Bench observed that producing original documents at the interview is not mandatory but a recommendation according to the language in the second note to Rule 9. The BPSC may ask for the originals to be produced at the viva voce test.
The Court held that although the advertisement stated that certificates of educational qualification and other required documents must be possessed during the online application submission, their production was not mandatory. However, candidates were informed in their interview letters that they must bring original copies and self-attested photocopies of their certificates, mark sheets, character certificates, and other documents. Despite the circumstances where Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra could not provide their original character certificates within the deadline, their candidatures were rejected for lack of original copies of their character certificates.
The Court referred to the case of Charles K. Skaria and Others v Dr. C. Mathew and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 752], where it was determined that eligibility and proof of eligibility are separate matters. The Court reiterated that if a person meets the eligibility requirements before the actual selection process, they can be allowed benefits even if proof is provided later.
The Bench observed that there was sufficient evidence, including true photocopies on record, to support the case. The Court also found it unjustified to reject the appellants' candidacy solely based on not presenting original documents during the interview, especially since it was optional according to the rules.
Regarding appellant Aditi, the Bench noted that although she had passed the final examination, she had yet to receive her law degree certificate due to the pandemic. However, relief was denied because she had applied under the EWS category, which had already been filled up by the time of the order. Despite scoring 501 marks, 2 points higher than the EWS category cutoff, it was still determined who the last successful candidate in that category was. Therefore, due to the unavailability of posts, relief was denied.
The Court disagreed with the BPSC's argument that producing original certificates was mandatory, even if the candidates possessed them at the time of application. The Bench held that if the non-production of original copies were optional, and therefore it would not be sufficient to reject the candidature of a candidate who was placed in the merit.
The Court noted that the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna filed an affidavit confirming that the cases of Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra were similar to that of Aarav Jain. The Bench also noted that the state government agreed to accommodate all three candidates who scored higher than the cut-off for their respective categories: Sweety Kumari, Vikramaditya Mishra, and Aditi.
Therefore, the Bench held that Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra would be given the same benefits as Aarav Jain and other candidates. Aditi would be given similar benefits as per the ratio of Aarav Jain, and the respondents were directed to adjust one vacancy of EWS for the same examination or from the next examination to extend the benefits to Aditi.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Respondents to accommodate the Appellants.
Cause Title: Sweety Kumari v The State of Bihar And Others (2023 INSC 853)
