THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MADHU KANT RANJAN & ANR.
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 506, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 506
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
v.
MADHU KANT RANJAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7677 of 2021)
DECEMBER 16, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment – A candidate/applicant has to
comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless
extended by the recruiting authority – Also, only those documents,
which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are
required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be
considered – Therefore, when respondent No.1-original writ
petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the
same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off
date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the
additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per the advertisement, the applicants were
required to submit the photocopies of all the relevant documents/
certificates alongwith the application form and the originals were
required to be produced at the time of their appointment before
the Selection Council. The original writ petitioner did not produce/
submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his
original application. Therefore, in absence of the submission of
the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
alongwith the application,
he was not allotted five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. However,
he submitted the same in the year 2007 after the physical test.
Therefore, he filed a writ petition making a grievance that as he
had produced/submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate, he had been
denied five additional marks. The Single Judge of the High Court
refused to issue any positive direction by observing that there is
no pleading in the writ petition in support of his claim that he had
annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application
506
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
form. The Single Judge also observed that from the pleadings it
appears that he submitted the same after the physical test on
15.01.2007, i.e., before the results were published on 26.12.2007.
However, when subsequently the instant writ petition was filed,
the original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he
had produced all the necessary documents including the NCC
‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application. This is nothing
but an afterthought. Having failed to get any positive direction in
the earlier writ petition on the ground that there is no pleading
that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original
application, he is not entitled to any positive direction and the
original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to improve his case
in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in the earlier
round of litigation. [Paras 6, 7][511-D-H; 513-B-D]
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors.,
(2011) 12 SCC 85 : [2011] 11 SCR 635; Rakesh Kumar
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2013) 11
SCC 58 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 11 SCR 635
referred to 
Para 3
(2013) 11 SCC 58
referred to
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7677
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.1631 of 2014.
Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Akshay
C. Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia
Shakil, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 20.02.2015passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.1631 of 2014
in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7650 of 2009 by which, after condoning
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MADHU KANT RANJAN &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
the delay of 3 years and 55 days in preferring the appeal, the Division
Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed
and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge
and has directed the D.I.G., Munger to take into account the select list
forwarded to him on 08.09.2007, which included the name of the
respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “original
writpetitioner”) and take necessary steps for his appointment as
Constable, the State of Bihar and Others have preferred the present
appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That applications were invited vide advertisement bearing No.
1/2004 published on 08.02.2004 for selection of Constables in the Bihar
Police Force. As per the advertisement, the applicant/candidate was
required to enclose theself-attested copies of all necessary documents
alongwith their application form. It further provided that all successful
candidates will produce their original certificates before the Selection
Council at the time of their appointment. The advertisement also further
provided that additional five marks for NCC ‘B’ certificate and 10 marks
for NCC ‘C’certificateshall be awarded to the candidates holding such
certificates.
2.2 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the original writ petitioner
applied for the said post. He also participated in the re-measurement
and physical test held on
08.09.2006 as per another advertisement
published in the daily newspaper for the same. As the original writ
petitioner did not submit his NCC certificate either with the application
form or with the second application, he scored 12 marks. As he did not
submit his NCC certificate, he was not awarded five additional marks
for NCC ‘B’ certificate. The original writ petitioner approached the High
Court by way of writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008 making a
grievance that he has been denied the benefit of five marks with regard
to NCC ‘B’ certificate possessed by him, as provided for in the
advertisement. It was his case that while his total marks were 17, making
him eligible for appointment, those with lesser marks have been
appointed,whilehis candidate has been considered on the basis of 12
marks only. The learned Single Judge refused to issue any positive
direction with regard to the consideration of his candidature by observing
that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed
his NCC ‘B’ certificate in support of his claim alongwith the original
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
application and in the absence of necessary pleading that the petitioner
had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application,
no positive direction can be issued. However, the learned Single Judge
observed that if the petitioner had not annexed such document with his
original application and submitted the same subsequently after physical
test but before the publication of the results, the matter shall remain in
the discretion of the authority. Therefore, while refusing to issue any
positive direction, disposed of the said writ petition for an appropriate
decision by the authority, to exercise the discretion and to consider whether
he could be allowed five additional marks on production of NCC ‘B’
certificate subsequently, after the physical test, but before the publication
of the results.
2.3 That thereafter under the Right to Information Act, the original
writ petitioner received the information that he was awarded 17 marks.
His representation, pursuant to the earlier order passed by the learned
Single Judge came to be disposed of by the appropriate authority refusing
to allow five additional marks by observing that as at the time of submitting
the original application, he did not submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’
certificate and which was filed subsequently after the physical test, he is
not entitled to the benefit of additional five marks. Theoriginal writ
petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court being Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7650 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by
judgment and order dated 01.10.2010 dismissed the said writ petition.
2.4 After a period of three years, the original writ petitioner
preferred the Letters Patent Appeal No.1631 of 2014 before theDivision
Bench. By impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the
High Court has condoned the delay of three years and thereafter has
allowed the Letters Patent Appeal quashing and setting aside the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge, and directed the appointing
authority to appoint the original writ petitioner as Constable awarding
five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate as per the select list
forwarded on 08.09.2007.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the State of
Bihar and Others have preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Abhinav Mukerji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MADHU KANT RANJAN &
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has
materially erred in quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge and has materially erred in
directing the appellants to appoint the original writ petitioner as a Constable
by awarding five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
3.1 It is submitted that as per the advertisement, the applicant
was required to enclose the self-attested copy of NCC ‘B’ certificate
alongwith the application form and the original was required to be produced
at the time of their appointment before the Selection Council.It is
submitted that in the present case, the original writ petitioner did not
produce the xerox copy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his
application form. It is submitted that the same came to be produced
after the physical test in the year 2007 and therefore he was not entitled
to the additional five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. It is submitted that
cut-off date for submitting the application was 22.02.2004 and at that
time the original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC
‘B’ certificate.It is submitted that therefore despite the above, in the
select list dated 08.09.2007, he was awarded 17 marks.However, having
found that he was not entitled to additional five marks of NCC ‘B’
certificate as he did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
alongwith the application
form, which was the requirement as per the
advertisement, the appointing authority did not allot five additional marks.
It is therefore submitted that a right decision was taken by the appointing
authority and the State not to allot five additional marks of NCC ‘B’
certificate. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed
the petition which is erroneously set aside by the Division Bench of the
High Court. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellantsthat as per the settled position of law the
documents submitted at the time of application only shall have to be
considered. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases
of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors., (2011) 12
SCC 85 and Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58.
4. Present appeal is opposed by Shri M. Shoeb Alam, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that from
the very beginning it was the case of the original writ petitioner that he
had produced all the relevant certificates including the NCC ‘B’
certificate alongwith his application. It is submitted that even in the writ
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
petition being CWJC No.7650 of 2009; it was specifically pleaded by
the original writ petitioner that he had submitted all the necessary
documents including the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the application.
It is urged that subsequently it was found that the relevant record had
been destroyed in the flood. It is submitted that even in the select list
dated 08.09.2007; the original writ petitioner was allotted 17 marks, which
included five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. It is therefore
submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed
to act as per the select list dated 08.09.2007 and has rightly directed to
appoint the original writ petitioner as Constable on the basis of select list
dated 08.09.2007. It is submitted that even the Division Bench of the
High Court has also denied back wages.
4.1 Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that as per the advertisement, the
applicants were required to submit the photocopies of all the relevant
documents/certificates alongwith the application form and the originals
were required to be produced at the time of their appointment before the
Selection Council. It appears that original writ petitioner did not produce/
submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his original
application. Therefore, in absence of the submission of the
photocopy of
the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the application, he was not allotted
five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. However, he submitted the same in
the year 2007 after the physical test. Therefore, he filed a writ petition
being CWJC No. 5431 of 2008 making a grievance that as he had
produced/submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate, he had been wrongly
awarded 12 marks and denied five additional marks. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court refused to issue any positive direction by
observing that there is no pleading in the writ petition in support of his
claim that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original
application form. The learned Single Judge also observed that from the
pleadings it appears that he submitted the same after the physical test on
15.01.2007, i.e., before the results were published on 26.12.2007.
Observing so the learned Single Judge held that in absence of necessary
pleadings that the petitioner had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith
his original application, the Court finds it difficult to issue any positive
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MADHU KANT RANJAN &
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
direction with regard to the consideration of his candidature. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of
Constable under advertisement no. 1 of 2004. Having applied in
response to the same, he appeared for physical test on 8.5.2006
when he was given 12 marks. The grievance is that he has been
denied the benefit of 5 marks under the advertisement with regard
to NCC-B certificate possessed by him as provided for in the
advertisement. In this manner, while his marks were total 17
making him eligible for appointment, those with lesser marks have
been appointed when his candidate has been considered on the
basis of 12 1narks only.
There is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner has
annexed his NCC-B certificate in support of his claim along with
the original application. It appears from the pleadings that he did
submit the same after the physical test on 15.1.2007 before the
results were published on 26.12.2007. Strong reliance has been
placed on the information furnished to the petitioner under Right
to Information Act by Annexure-8 dated 23.6.2008 in support of
the plea.
In absence of necessary pleadings that the petitioner had annexed
his NCC-B certificate along with his original application, this Court
finds it difficult to issue any positive direction with regard
to
consideration of the candidature of the petitioner. If the petitioner
had originally annexed his NCC-B certificate along with his
application, naturally he is required to be considered on basis of
17 marks as mentioned in Annexurte-8 dated 23.6.2008. But, if
the petitioner had not annexed such documents with his original
application and submitted the same subsequently after physical
test but before the publication of the results, the matter shall remain
in the discretion of the Respondents and it is not possible for this
Court to pass any positive orders on the aspect of consideration
of his candidature. The Court is of such view for the reason that
if this Court was to direct any relaxation of any condition, it would
amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by a judicial
order.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms for an
appropriate decision by the Respondents within a maximum period
of six weeks from the date of receipt and/ or production of a copy
of this order.”
7. Thus,as per the pleadings in the earlier writ petition being CWJC
No.5431 of 2008, there was no averment in support of his claim that he
had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application.
However, when subsequently the present writ petition was filed, the
original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he had produced
all the necessary documents including the NCC ‘B’ certificatealongwith
his original application. The aforesaid is nothing but an afterthought.
Having failed to get any positive direction in the earlier writ petition on
the ground that there is no pleading that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’
certificate alongwith the original application, he is not entitled to any
positive direction and the original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to
improve his case in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in
the earlier round of litigation.
8. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the earlier
round of litigation, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that
there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed
his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application. Once, it is
found that the respondent No.1– original writ petitioner did not submit
the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application
which was the requirement as per the advertisement and the cut-off
date as per the advertisement was 22.02.2004 and he produced the same
after the physical test on 15.01.2007, the appointing authority rightly
held that he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC ‘B’
certificate. Though in the select list dated 08.09.2007, he was awarded
17 marks, which included five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate,
the appointing authority disagreed with the same on the ground that as
photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate was not produced alongwith his
application form, which was the requirement as per the advertisement,
he shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
Therefore, when a decision was taken on the representation made by
the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner which was pursuant to the
earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being
CWJC No.5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to allot/award five
additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MADHU KANT RANJAN &
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has
to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement
before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting
authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith
the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the
advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent
No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC
‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement
and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-
off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the
additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate. In these circumstances,
the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants
to appoint the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of
Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five
additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside
and judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
the writ petition is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed