The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered on September 22, 2025, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate whose appointment as a Clerk was rescinded after the recruiting authority discovered and rectified errors in the application of the state’s reservation policy. Justice Partha Sarthy ruled that the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Munger, acted correctly in cancelling an initial select list and issuing a revised one to comply with reservation norms.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, had applied for the post of Clerk in the Backward Class (BC) category in response to Employment Notice no. 1&2/2011 issued by the DLSA for positions in Munger, Lakhisarai, and Sheikhpura. After qualifying in the written test and interview, his name appeared at serial number 5 on a select list published on the notice board on January 30, 2012.
Following this, an appointment letter was issued to Mr. Kumar, stipulating that the position was “absolutely temporary” and that his services could be terminated without prior information if found unsatisfactory. He was asked to join by February 27, 2012. However, before the joining date, the petitioner and other selected candidates were informed that a new date for joining would be communicated by the DLSA, Munger.
Subsequently, on July 4, 2012, the DLSA published a new select list for the post of Clerk, from which Mr. Kumar’s name was absent. Aggrieved by this, he filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the DLSA to accept his joining based on the initial appointment letter.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, argued that the DLSA could not legally publish a new select list without first formally cancelling the original list in which his name appeared. It was contended that the dropping of his name and the inclusion of new candidates in the second list was arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Representing the respondent DLSA, counsel submitted that after the publication of the initial select list, it was discovered that “inadvertently the reservation policy as mandated by Sankalp no.2374 dated 16.7.2007 had not been followed and errors had occurred in finalising the select list.”
The respondents stated that upon discovering the error, the Appointment Committee sought and received approval from the Hon’ble Executive Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA), Patna. Consequently, a formal notice was issued via Memo no. 381-86 on April 21, 2012, and displayed on the notice board, explicitly cancelling the first select list dated January 15, 2012. The notice further clarified that “the appointment letter which was previously issued by the Office of the DLSA also be treated as having been cancelled.”
The respondents asserted that a corrected select list was subsequently prepared in strict adherence to the state’s reservation policy, and the petitioner did not secure a position in this revised list.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing the arguments from both sides and perusing the material on record, the High Court proceeded to analyze the actions of the respondent authorities.
Justice Partha Sarthy observed that the core issue stemmed from the DLSA’s realization that the reservation policy of the State Government had been incorrectly applied. The court took note of the formal notice of cancellation dated April 21, 2012, which nullified both the select list and the appointment letters issued pursuant to it.
The judgment referred to a letter dated April 26, 2013, from the DLSA to the BSLSA, which detailed the nature of the error. It was explained that two successful candidates from the first list, Swatantra Kumar Jyoti and Santosh Kumar, who were selected under the EBC category, had secured marks high enough to qualify them for selection in the General/Unreserved category.
In accordance with the state policy outlined in Sankalp no. 2374 dated July 16, 2007, these two candidates were shifted to the General/Unreserved category. This necessary correction led to a redrawing of the merit list for reserved categories, in which the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, could not find a place.
Concluding its analysis, the Court found no fault in the respondent’s actions. The judgment stated, “In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the Court finds no error in the action of the respondent-authorities in applying the reservation policy and in coming out with a corrected merit/select list.”
The Court further noted two additional points: first, the petitioner had not yet joined the post, and second, the appointment letter itself had clearly described the appointment as “absolutely temporary.”
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the case.
