Akanchha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 11-08-2026 This Court has heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate for the Bihar Public Service Commission as well as Md. Shahid Siddique, learned Advocate for the State.

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the result dated 05.03.2025, duly published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) against Advertisement no. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024 for recruitment to the post of Teacher in Subject Zoology (Class-XI and XII) in so far as the last selected candidate in the Backward Class (Female) category is concerned. The petitioner also sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher in the above referred subject after adding marks earmarked for experience, since the petitioner has more than five years experience as Guest Teacher.

The facts, as culled out from the record are not in dispute, however, for adjudication of the issue, the same are briefly reproduced hereinbelow:

Finally, the respondent Commission has come out with the result on 05.03.2023, in which total number of 624 candidates have been declared successful in the subject of Zoology on the post of School Teacher for Higher Secondary (Class-XI and XII). The cut off marks in Backward Class (Female) category is shown to be 70 marks. Since the petitioner had done reasonably well in the written examination, on being surprised to see the result tried to find out the reason of her exclusion and further she came to know that her experience certificate did not find the signature of District Education Officer. On account of aforesaid reason, the petitioner had not been allowed the marks earmarked for experience.

Mr. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, adverting the aforesaid facts, submitted that the present is not a case where the petitioner had not acquired the experience of a Guest Teacher upon her appointment in pursuant to Memo No. 51 dated 25.01.2018, rather acknowledging the fact of her services rendered as a Guest Teacher in +2 School from 13.08.2018 to 30.03.2024, the Principal of the School had issued the experience certificate on 05.06.2024. Such experience certificate was later on duly counter signed by the District Education Officer, Saran on 07.06.2024. But as the petitioner had taken a few photo copies of the same and one copy was presented to the District Education Officer, who signed it on 07.06.2024 and it may be possible that due to sheer mistake she had given a photo copy of experience certificate issued by the Principal, which did not bear the signature of District Education Officer, Saran. The petitioner has the original copy of the certificate, duly counter signed by the District Education Officer, Saran on 07.06.2024 of much before the last date fixed for filing of the same i.e. on 10.06.2024. The requisite experience certificate was in the possession of the petitioner, therefore, there was no reason why she would not have given the certificate, signed by the Principal as well as District Education Officer, but unfortunately due to mistake or inadvertence, the petitioner has submitted certificate signed/issued by the Principal only on 11.02.2025. The Commission published the score card of the candidates from which it appears that the petitioner secured 63 marks without adding the marks of experience. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has the experience of more than 5 years, therefore, had the marks earmarked for experience been added to the marks obtained by the petitioner, she would have secured 88 marks, much above the cut off marks in her category.

Mr. Kaushik further argued that the possession of requisite qualification on date required is quite distinguishable from submission of proof of same by date required. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessary result in rejection of the candidature. There was only a shortcoming in submission of proof on the date prescribed. However, the petitioner was having a copy of experience certificate, duly counter signed by the District Education Officer, Saran on 07.06.2024 itself.

Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. : (1980) 2 SCC 752, Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee and Ors. : (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim : (2019) 5 SCC 793.

Adverting to above referred decisions, he further urged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently spelt out in clear terms that what is essential is the possession of an eligibility or qualification before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification.

It is lastly contended that since the posts are still vacant under the subject of Zoology, even in the Backward Class (Female) category, hence her relief to the extent whereby she sought quashing of the appointment of last candidate in the said category does not occasion, rather the respondent authorities should consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post, which is still vacant after adding the marks earmarked for experience in view of the dictum, as underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Per contra, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Commission dispelling the aforesaid contentions primarily submitted that since the result for the Zoology subject for the post of School Teacher under Advertisement No. 22/2024 was published on 05.03.2025, duly acknowledged by the petitioner in her petition and thereafter the Commission forwarded the recommendation of successful candidates to the concerned Department, who have already joined their respective posts, but the petitioner has not chosen to implead the successful candidates as party respondents; in absence of these necessary parties, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law.

Mr. Shukla further argued that the Commission is a recommending body, functions strictly in accordance with Rules and Regulation framed by the State Government and accordingly in view of the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, after obtaining approval from the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department vide letter no. 1470 dated 31.05.2024 requesting the Commission to grant weightage of five marks per year up to maximum 25 marks to Guest Teachers appointed under the Resolution contained in Memo No. 51 dated 25.01.2018, notice has been issued informing the candidates to submit their appointment letters/experience certificate, duly issued by the District Education Officer. The writ petitioner admittedly failed to submit experience certificate, duly issued by the concerned District Education Officer, as mandatorily required, she was not awarded any marks for the experience certificate, which was not valid in the eyes of law. Since the petitioner has obtained only 63 marks whereas the cut off marks for the Backward Class (Female) category was 70, hence the petitioner was not declared successful.

Mr. Shukla further argued that the candidates, who could not submit their experience certificate on 11.02.2025, they have been given further opportunity to submit their experience certificate on 17.02.2025, nonetheless the petitioner has not produced the valid certificate and accordingly there was no reason or occasion to extend any marks of experience on an invalid certificate. Placing reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. State of A.P. & Anr. : AIR 1986 SC 1490 he vehemently prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

Mr. Siddique, learned Advocate for the State supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the Commission and submitted that it is the Commission, who is the recruiting agency to conduct examination in terms with the prescribed Rules and Regulations and once the petitioner is unable to make out a case of any irregularity or infraction of any Rules and Regulations, the writ petition is devoid of any merit.

Now the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the mistake of the petitioner is of the nature that it disentitles the petitioner to be considered for appointment or in the given facts and circumstances, her claim ought not to be defeated on mere technicalities.

It could be worth noting, at inception, that since the objection of the Commission regarding maintainability of the writ petition has no substance in view of the availability of ample vacant post and no prejudice would be caused to the right and entitlement of any candidate, such objection is hereby stands overrulled.

To answer the issue we first take up the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra) where the University had failed to reckon the qualification of Diploma of the applicant, who could not produce the requisite certificate before the cut off date and thereby they have been deprived from adding 10 marks for holding a Diploma certificate. The two judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its significant judgment authored by the legend V.R. Krishna Iyer, J has held that what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the essential requirement is secondary. In such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically observed that “what is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”.

This Court finds it worth benefiting to quote the remarkable observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows:

Coming to the next decision rendered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra) wherein the appellant, who was an aspirant for the Medical course, appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 under the reserved MI category being daughter of an ex-serviceman, who was discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of Information Brochure of JEE-2003 certain percentage of seats are reserved for children/widows of personnel of armed/paramilitary forces of Orissa, killed/disabled in action during war or peace time operation. Her rank in the JEE-2003 in the reserved MI category in the medical stream was 20 and accordingly she was called for counselling for admission to a medical college. However, in course of scrutiny of papers it was revealed that in the certificate given to her father by the Zilla Sainik Board in Column No.3 which pertained to “Disabled/killed in war/hostilities” the words “not eligible” were written. Since the aforesaid certificate did not satisfy the requirement of the reserved MI category, her candidature was rejected. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court and the matter finally had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After having reiterated the broad principle enunciated in the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category and her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which was committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is said to be wholly unjust and illegal. This Court also tempted to quote the relevant paragraph of the above referred decision, which would give a light to adjudicate the issue involved in the writ petition.

In the case of Rimjhim (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue where the applicant was denied appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) on the ground that she did not produce the certificate of one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa along with the application and/or even at the time of verification of documents, while upholding the decision of the High Court, which set aside the action of the Food Corporation of India in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the said ground and directed to consider her case on merits has held in paragraph 13 as follows:

This Court also takes note of a decision rendered in the case of Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs. Union Public Service Commission : (2017) 11 SCC 276, wherein while considering the issue with regard to rejection of applicant’s candidature on account of non-production of an added qualification as part of the essential qualification at the degree lend, which the appellant did possess and for mere asking, the appellant could have produced the same, has held in para. 14 as follows:

Besides the aforesaid proposition illuminated and underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is also conscious of the series of the decisions where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure, which needs to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, unless such power is specifically reserved in law, the relevant rules and/or in advertisement, even where power of relaxation is or is not provided in relevant rules, it must be mentioned in the advertisement. Such power, if exercised should be given due publicity to ensure that those candidates, who become eligible due to relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication is contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [vide Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. : (2011) 12 SCC 85].

It is also well settled that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and any suppression or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled, even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse and not for trivial omissions or errors. The aforenoted decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. The Union of India & Ors. : 2016 SCC OnLine Del. 6553 was taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. : (2020) 11 SCC 785 and it has been duly observed that exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex.

In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken note of the fact that applicant hails from a small village belongs to the downtrodden segment of the society, despite having requisite qualification and eligibility criteria could not be declare qualified on account of giving wrong date of birth in the application. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, as also by the Division Bench conforming the objection of the recruiting agency have come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the appellant could not be penalised for this inadvertent error which made no difference to the ultimate result. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while concluding the judgment has finally held that the Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.

Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as a Guest Teacher in Zoology pursuant to Memo No. 51 dated 25.01.2018 and, having rendered continuous services as a Guest Teacher in +2 School, Khanpur, she was issued an experience certificate dated 05.06.2024 by the Principal of the School. The said certificate was duly counter-signed by the District Education Officer, Saran on 07.06.2024. A copy of the said certificate has been placed on record as Annexure-5/B to the writ petition. Thus, the factum of the petitioner having acquired the requisite experience and having obtained a duly authenticated experience certificate much prior to the prescribed date for submission of the same stands established from the materials on record.

Once this Court finds that the experience certificate had in fact been issued in favour of the petitioner on 05.06.2024 and was duly counter-signed by the competent authority, namely, the District Education Officer, Saran on 07.06.2024, there remains little scope to accept the contention of the Commission that the petitioner did not possess a valid experience certificate. The material placed on record indicates that the petitioner was in possession of the duly authenticated certificate much before the date prescribed for submission thereof. It appears that, due to inadvertence, the petitioner submitted on 11.02.2025 a copy of the experience certificate bearing only the signature of the Principal, instead of the copy duly counter-signed by the District Education Officer. The explanation furnished by the petitioner is that she was under the bona fide impression that the duly counter-signed certificate had already been submitted. The subsequent opportunity granted by the Commission on 17.02.2025 to candidates who had failed to submit their certificates on the earlier date also could not be availed of by the petitioner for the same reason. Thus, the lapse on the part of the petitioner appears to be confined to the mode of proof/submission of the certificate and does not relate to the existence or possession of the requisite experience itself.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the lapse on the part of the petitioner was purely inadvertent and procedural in nature. The petitioner had already acquired the requisite experience and was also in possession of the experience certificate duly authenticated by the competent authority well before the date prescribed for its submission. The omission was, therefore, not with regard to the acquisition of the requisite experience, but only with regard to the production of the duly authenticated certificate at the relevant stage. Such an inadvertent lapse, particularly when the petitioner had otherwise fulfilled the substantive eligibility requirement and no prejudice is shown to have been caused to any other candidate, cannot be permitted to defeat a legitimate claim for consideration. The technical objection raised by the Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be allowed to prevail over the requirement of substantial justice.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the respondent Commission is directed to accept and consider the experience certificate of the petitioner duly counter-signed by the District Education Officer, Saran, and to award the marks admissible to her towards such experience. The Commission shall thereafter re-compute and publish the petitioner’s result and, if she is otherwise found eligible and falls within the zone of selection, consider her candidature for appointment in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall preferably be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is hereby allowed.