"Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; Te decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps..."
-Supreme Court's 5-Judge Constitution Bench, November 7, 2024 in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court. & Ors. [2024 INSC 847]
The Court of the Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri will hear Yadvenra Kumar Yadav @ Yadavendra Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) case on September 15, 2025, wherein, Advocate Yadvenra Kumar Yadav as challenged the illegal appointment the public prosecutor of Bhojpur. Earlier, the case was before Justice Ashutosh Kumar. The other four respondents are: the Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, Joint Secretary Cum In-Charge Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate, Bhojpur and Advocate Rana Pratap Singh, Bhojpur. The case was filed in the High Court on June 19, 2025 and registered on June 25, 2025.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the arbitrary and illegal appointment of Rana Pratap Singh as Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur District (Ara) via Letter No. 3483 dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar. The appointment has been challenged on the grounds of absence of mandatory consultation between the District Magistrate and Sessions Judge as required under Section 18(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), 2023. It has been pointed out that the appointment is based on an outdated panel of 11 advocates-two of whom had passed away. It has violated fair representation norms. There was suppression of a pending criminal case by Rana Pratap Singh, the appointee, rendering him ineligible. There has been illegal retrospective application of the Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023, to a selection process which was initiated in 2021. It has been submitted to the High Court that despite representations submitted by the petitioner and others highlighting these grave irregularities, no corrective action has been taken by the authorities.
It all began when the Law Department, Government of Bihar issued Letter No. 7117 dated December 29, 2020 seeking a panel of advocates for the Public Prosecutor. Subsequent to that on District Magistrate issued Memo No. 1862 dated December 31, 2020 inviting applications by January 30, 2021. On July 27, 2021 the initial panel of names was sent to the Law Department. But on September 16, 2021, a Memo No. 5188 was issued instructing the cancellation of the earlier process and re-advertisement. On July 27, 2021, District Magistrate issued Memo No. 1769 for cancellation and and re-advertisement (extended by 2 months). On October 5, 2021, a new information was brought out seeking fresh applications. On April 12, 2022, the final panel of 11 advocates was submitted via Letter No. 866 by DM, Bhojpur. On 03.09.2022, Advocate Surendra Kumar Chaudhary (Kurmi caste) passed away. On 02.12.2023, criminal case against Rana Pratap Singh (Piro P.S. Case No. 213/1990) disposed of. On 02.07.2024 Secretary to Government of Bihar issued a letter with regard to Rule 6 (3) under Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023 requiring mandatory IT Returns of the last three years. The Law Department issued Memo No. 4332 dated 11.07.2024 to all District Magistrates and Sessions Judges, directing that, in view of the Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023, and all desirous candidates were required to submit their Income Tax Returns for the preceding three financial years. Notably, on 31.07.2024, Advocate Hiralal Prasad (Koiri caste), one of the 11 advocates passed away.
The following names of Advocates were recommended by D.M. Bhojpur for appointment of Public Prosecutor, Bhojpur at Ara: (1) Nageshwar Dubey (2) Ram Suresh Singh (3) Sardar Virendra Singh (4) Sanjay Kumar Singh (5) Rana Pratap Singh (6) Uday Narayan Prasad (7) Maharana Pratap Singh (8) Hiral Lal Prasad (died on July 31, 2024), (9) Ram Babu Prasad (10) Parashuram Chaudhari (11) Surendra Kumar Chaudhari (died on September 3, 2022).
The petitioner has raised the following substantial questions of law:
a. Whether the Letter under Challenge is without Jurisdiction?
b. Whether the appointment of a new Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur was done as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of BNSS and the New Bihar Law Officer Engagement Rule, 2023?
c. Whether the appointment of Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur was made on the basis of the Panel Names of eleven advocates prepared in 2022?
d. Whether in view of the fact that the two advocates whose names had appeared in the Panel of 11 Advocates had died, can the same be treated as be Valid Panel?
e. Whether the appointment of the Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur is without consultation as contemplated under Section 18(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
f. Whether in view of the facts that the Respondent No. 5 suppressed the pendency of the Criminal Case against him as required under Clause 13 of the Biodata, and thus disqualified him for the appointment?
No comments:
Post a Comment