NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

The petitions were dismissed because the Courts exemption from the physical test applied specifically to a classified group of 133 candidates by exercise of Article 142 and was expressly stated not to be a precedent; petitioners, who either did not undertake or failed the physical test for the 299-post selection, could not establish entitlement to the same relief and granting parity would open the door to multitudinous similar claims.

Parties
Petitioner: NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS.; Respondent: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appointment, Selection Process, Physical Efficiency Test, Medical Fitness Test, Parity, Exercise of Article 142
Service Law Constitutional Law Appointment Selection Process Physical Efficiency Test Medical Fitness Test Parity Exercise of Article 142

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS.

Petitioner

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners who did not undertake or who failed the physical efficiency test for selection to 299 Sub-Inspector posts are entitled to appointment by parity with 133 candidates who were exempted from the physical test by this Court
  2. 2 Whether the Courts orders made under Article 142 exempting a specific group (133 candidates) from the normal process can be treated as a precedent for other candidates

Ratio Decidendi

The petitions were dismissed because the Courts exemption from the physical test applied specifically to a classified group of 133 candidates by exercise of Article 142 and was expressly stated not to be a precedent; petitioners, who either did not undertake or failed the physical test for the 299-post selection, could not establish entitlement to the same relief and granting parity would open the door to multitudinous similar claims.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • All writ petitions dismissed.
  • Representations by similarly placed applicants may be considered by the State as permitted by the Courts earlier order of 01.11.2018, but rejection of such representations shall not give rise to proceedings in any Court.