Holding

The Court held that Rule 16’s proviso must be read with both clauses (a) and (b), that total marks in the written examination determine suitability, and that the appointments already made cannot be set aside, thereby quashing the High Court judgment.

Summary

The appellants, who qualified the 6th Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination 2016 and were appointed after completing probation, challenged the cancellation of their appointments by the High Court, which had held that Paper‑I marks should be excluded from the merit list and that qualifying marks must be met in each subject. The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rule 16 (a) and (b) of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1951 and its proviso, holding that the proviso applies to both clauses and that total marks obtained in the written examination, not individual subject marks, determine suitability. It also considered the ambiguity in the advertisement regarding qualifying marks and the long‑standing practice of the Commission. Given that the candidates had been appointed and served for nearly two years, the Court found it unjust to overturn the appointments. Consequently, it quashed the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeals, confirming the validity of the appointments.

Issues considered

Whether marks obtained in Paper‑I of the main examination should be added to the total marks for preparing the merit list.
Whether the merit list should be based on aggregate total marks or on minimum qualifying marks in each subject paper.
How Rule 16(a) and 16(b) of the 1951 Rules and its proviso should be interpreted – whether the proviso applies only to clause (b) or to both clauses.
Whether the High Court’s interpretation of the advertisement clauses 12 and 13 is correct.
Whether the appointments already made, after two years of service, can be cancelled on the basis of the High Court’s decision.

Legislation cited

Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000

Subjects

service lawcivil services examinationappointment validityrule interpretationmerit listqualifying marksjudicial reviewadministrative discretion

Judgment

16 [2022]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 16 S.C.R. 16 [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A BARUN KUMAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5812 of 2022)
B AUGUST 25, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR. JJ.]
Service Law – Jharkhand Combined Civil Services
Examination – Validity of appointments – Interpretation of r.16 and
r.17 of Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior
C
Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 – High Court cancelled
the appointment of appellants who had qualified the 6th combined
Civil Service Examination, 2016 – Appellants-candidates in appeal
before Supreme Court – Held: While reading clause (a) and (b) of
r.16 conjointly, it states that clause (a) is general and precise for
D the candidates who are participating in the written examination
whereas clause (b) refers to the candidates who belong to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes leaving the discretion of the
Commission to fix qualifying marks for them but with restriction
that shall not be higher than 35% - R.16 proviso relates to the stage
for determining the suitability of the candidate, total marks obtained
E
in the written examination has to be counted and not the marks
obtained in any particular subject for preparing the list of candidates
who qualify the written examination and this can be made further
clear by taking note of r.17 – Clause 12(a) of advertisement in
reference to the Preliminary Examination states that fifteen times
F candidates will be shortlisted for main examination and as per clause
12(b), the main examination will comprise of 06 papers, total marks
of which would be 1050 and it would be mandatory for the candidate
to appear in all the subjects/papers of Main Examination – However,
for Paper-I, minimum 30 marks as qualifying marks has been
prescribed and all the 6 papers are common and candidate has to
G
appear in all the papers with the minimum qualifying marks for the
respective category as per clause13 of the advertisement but whether
it is the total marks obtained at the written examination or qualifying
marks obtained in all the papers separately is not clear under the
terms of advertisement – Reading clauses 12 and 13 of advertisement
H with r.16 of indicates ambiguity in advertisement – Both the
16
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 17

Commission and High Court have different views which are equally A
possible views and either of the one could not be ruled out or
outrightly negated – When one possible view has been acted upon
by the Commission and candidates have been appointed and are
working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this
Court to now permit the Government to take a U-Turn – Hence, the
B
appointments of the candidates could not be cancelled.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Reading clause (a) and (b) of Rule 16 conjointly,
states that clause (a) is general and precise for the candidates
who are participating in the written examination whereas clause C
(b) refers to the candidates who belong to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes leaving the discretion of the Commission to fix
qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but with
restriction that shall not be higher than 35% in Bihar Civil
Services (Executive Branch). [Para 37][33-G-H; 34-A]
D
2. The proviso added thereto relates to the stage for
determining the suitability of the candidate, total marks obtained
in the written examination has to be counted and not the marks
obtained in any particular subject for preparing the list of
candidates who qualify the written examination and this can be
made further clear by taking note of Rule 17 of the Rules which E
casts an obligation upon the Commission to collate the marks
obtained by the candidate in the written examination and the
Commission shall arrange for vivavoce the candidates who have
qualified the written examination according to Rule 16(a) or 16(b),
as the case may be, and at this stage the Commission keeps a F
discretion and in exceptional circumstances may admit a member
from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce
test, even if they have failed to qualify the minimum qualifying
marks with the prior approval of the Government and this being
the scheme of Rules, proviso to Rule 16 has to be read for both
the clause (a) and (b) to Rule 16 and cannot be read in reference G
to clause (b) alone as held by the High Court under the impugned
judgment. [Para 38][34-A-D]
3. If we examine clause 12(a) in reference to the preliminary
examination, it may indicate that according to vacancies, fifteen
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A times candidates will be shortlisted for main examination and as
per clause 12(b), the main examination will comprise of 06 papers,
total marks of which would be 1050 and it would be mandatory
for the candidate to appear in all the subjects/papers of Main
Examination. But for Paper-I, minimum 30 marks as qualifying
marks has been prescribed and all the 6 papers are common and
B
candidate has to appear in all the papers with the minimum
qualifying marks for the respective category as indicated in clause
13 of the advertisement but whether it is the total marks obtained
at the written examination or qualifying marks obtained in all the
papers separately is not clear under the terms of advertisement.
C It is true that it can be construed in both ways. The main
examination is comprising of 6 papers, total marks would be 1050
and candidate has to appear in all the papers of the main
examination. This could be one construction that qualifying marks
in paperI is 30% but in other subject papers, it may be 40% or as
fixed for the respective category and whether it has to be
D
aggregate or qualifying marks in each paper is indeed not clear
and ambiguity is there in the conditions of advertisement, of which
a detailed reference has been made. At this stage, we take
assistance of Rule 16 of the scheme of Rules, 1951 read with the
proviso which gives a different indication. [Para 40 and 41][34-F-
E H; 35-A-C]
4. In the instant case, the view which has been adopted by
the Commission and that has been considered and held by the
High Court in the impugned judgment may be better
circumscribed but both are equally possible views and either of
F the one could not be ruled out or outrightly negated. In the given
situation, when one possible view has been acted upon by the
Commission and pursuant to which the recommendations were
made and after approval of the State Government, candidates have
been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time,
it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to
G take a U-Turn in compliance of the impugned judgment, and non-
suit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time.
[Paras 43 and 44][36-B-E]
Joy Guria v. State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(S)
No. 4188 of 2018]; N. Suresh Nathan and Another v.
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 19

Union of India and Others (1992) 1 Supp SCC 584 : A
[1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 423 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 423 referred to Para 42
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5812 B
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2022 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 201 of 2021.
With
C
Civil Appeal Nos. 5813, 5814-5817 and 5818 of 2022, Transfer
Petition (C) No. 1100 of 2022.
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Advs.,
Abhishek Ritabh Shukla, Rudrashish Bhardwaj, Md. Ali, Ms. Pracheta
Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, Tushar Bakshi, Satyajeet Kumar,
D
Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava, Shanker Singh,Ms. Shreya Mishra,
Ms. Aaina Walia, Madhumay Mishra, Brajesh Pandey, Saket Jain, Vijay
Laxmi, Anilendra Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Arunabh Chowdhury, Manoj
Swarup, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Anusha Nagarajan,
Ms. Samten Doma, Sourabh Tandon, Ritansh Vats, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar E
Giri, Amritansh Vats, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Shubhashis R. Soren, Bhakti
Vardhan Singh, Vaibhav Kumar Rana, Vatsalya Vigya, Puneet Jain,
Vigyan Shah, Ms. Christi Jain, Akshit Gupta, Yogit Kamat, Umang Mehta,
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Abhishek Ray, Karma Dorjee,
Dechen W. Lachungpa, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Neelmani F
Pant, Ms. Kriti Dang, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Amit Agrawal, Vigyan
Shah, Akshit Gupta, Ms. Radhika Yadav, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Rajneesh
Bhaskar, S. R. Setia, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AJAY RASTOGI, J. G

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).4310 OF 2022
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).4443 OF 2022
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) No(s).5338-5341 OF 2022
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s). 5409 OF 2022
1. Leave granted.
2. The present batch of appeals has been preferred by the
candidates who on qualifying the 6 th Combined Civil Services
Examination, 2016, conducted by respondent no.3, Jharkhand Public
B Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) and
having been appointed on the recommendations made by the Commission,
completed their period of probation and got regular postings, their
appointments have been cancelled initially by the learned Single Judge
by its judgment dated 7th June, 2021, which came to be affirmed by the
C Division Bench of the High Court on dismissal of the Letters Patent
Appeal filed at the instance of the present appellants by judgment and
order impugned dated 23rd February, 2022.
3. The facts in brief which may be relevant for the purpose, with
the consent of parties have been noticed from Civil Appeal @ Special
D Leave Petition (Civil) No.4310 of 2022 (Barun Kumar & Ors. Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors.).
4. That in terms of the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000, Bihar
Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 1951”)
E was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification no.6184 dated
9th November, 2002 and accordingly, the State of Jharkhand held its
Combined Civil Service Examination in terms of the Rules 1951.
5. That prior to the present selection process which came to be
initiated by the Commission pursuant to Advertisement no.1/2015, the
F respondents held 5th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted
by the Commission pursuant to Advertisement no.6/2013 dated 7th July,
2013, there was a specific note in the advertisement that preliminary
examination had two papers of 100 marks each and there shall be subject
papers in the main examination and that the marks obtained in General
Hindi will not be added in the marks obtained in the written examination
G and personality test, but the candidates who failed to secure 30 marks in
compulsory General Hindi, will not be considered eligible for the written
examination and accordingly Paper-I (General Hindi) was considered to
be a qualifying test and before the 6 th Combined Civil Services
Examination, 2016 came to be notified, there was a series of meetings
held by the Expert Committee for revision of the examination pattern for
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 21
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

Combined Civil Services Examination chaired by Mr. V.S. Dubey, IAS A
(Retd.) and the Expert Committee, after examining the Pattern of
Examination, made the recommendations1.
1

“65.Briefly sp eaking, the Expert Committee has the following
recommendations to make :-
(a) All the optional papers, both at the level of the preliminary and main B
examinations of the Civil Services, be done away and replaced by common,
compulsory papers.
(b) The Preliminary Examination should be conducted in two papers only,
each of 200 marks, compulsory for all candidates. The broad syllabus of these
two papers could be the same as that of the Civil Services Aptitude Test
(CSAT) of the Union Public Service Commission, with minor modifications to C
accommodate local interests. These two papers could be called: (i) the Civil
Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) Paper I, and (ii) the Civil Services Aptitude
Test (CSAT) Paper II. Questions to be asked in these two papers must be
multiple choice, objective type, with no negative marking. Based on the result
of the Preliminary Examination, the number of the candidates to be called for
the written (Main) Examination should be around ten times of the vacancies to
be filled. The cut off marks of the Main Examination should be decided D
accordingly by the Commission.
(c) The Main Examination should be conducted for a maximum of
1000 marks, divided into six papers, compulsory for all candidates. Of the
six papers, two should be drawn from the languages group and remaining
four should be subject papers, as per details given below :-
(i) Paper I should be a composite paper of General Hindi and General
English of Matric standard of 100 marks. This paper should have two E
separate segments, one on Hindi and the other one on English, each of
equal weightage or 50 marks.
(ii) Paper II should be a paper on Language & Literature of 100 marks of
graduate standard. This paper will be set separately for each one of the
following 15 languages, namely, (i) Hindi, (ii) Urdu, (iii) Bengali, (iv)
Oriya, (v) English, (vi) Sanskrit, (vii) Santhali, (viii) Mundari, (ix) Khadia,
(x) Ho, (xi) Kuruk, (xii) Nagpuria, (xiii) Kurumali, (xiv) Khorta, and
F
(xv) Panch Pargania, of which every candidate will have to opt for one.
(iii) Paper III should be a paper on Social Sciences of 200 marks, comprising
of two distinct sections, each of equal weightage, one on History and
the other one on Geography.
(iv) Paper IV should be a paper on Indian Constitution & Polity, Public
Administration & Good Governance. G
(d) Marks obtained in all the six compulsory papers of the written
Main Examination should be counted and clubbed together to prepare
the gradation-list. The candidates should be called for the Personality
Test based on their position in the gradation list of the Main Examination.
The number of candidates to be called for the Personality Test could be
around two to three times of the vacancies to be filled. The cut-off marks
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A 6. The report of the Dubey Committee was considered by the
Commission in the first instance and recommended the same to
Respondent No.1 for acceptance, inter alia, with the stipulations2

for the candidates to be called for the Personality Test (Interview) should
be determined accordingly by the Commission.
B (e) Marks to be kept earmarked for the Personality Test (Interview)
should not exceed 10% of the total marks of the written (Main) Examination.
This will, thus, work out to 100 marks, which, in the opinion of the Commission,
is more than enough for this segment of the examination. It is to be remembered
that maximum complaints of favouritism and arbitrariness are received only in
this section of the examination. Hence, it is necessary to keep a cap on the
marks allotted for the Personality Test.
C (f) The trainee-officers should be evaluated at the end of the institutional-
cum-field training through a formal system of examination and the marks obtained
in this examination be added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the
Civil Services (Main) Examination to determine their final inter-se service
seniority. A maximum of 100 marks could be kept earmarked for this purpose.
The details of the areas in which the institutional examination is to be conducted
should be left to the concerned parent departments to work out in consultation
D with their training institutions and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.”
2
(1)100 marks Language paper of mains be of qualifying nature only in which a
candidate shall secure minimum 30 marks out of the Combined Hindi & English
(10 th standard paper of 100 marks).
(2) The Revised Examination Pattern Syllabus shall be effective from the 6 th
Combined Civil Services Examination only so that candidates get clear 15 months
E
to prepare as per the revised pattern and syllabus. The next 5 th Combined Civil
Services Examination will be on the existing (Mains) syllabus.
(3) Before issuing the notification of revised syllabus Jharkhand Public Service
Commission shall get the syllabus of 9 Regional Languages and Hindi, Urdu,
Sanskrit, Oriya, Bangla and English Language & Literature finalized by Expert
Committee in its final meeting in which the Expert Committee Report was
F adopted.
The Committee thus resolves this day i.e. 2 nd April, 2013 to forward
the V.S. Dubey Expert Committee Report to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand along with the Commission’s above recommendations for
acceptance as early as possible with a view to ensure that the Revised Pattern
can be enforced from the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination to be held in
2014 giving candidates at least 15 months to prepare on the basis of revised
G pattern.”
“‘‘12. Formation of exam: Preliminary test and main exam (written &
interview) will be organized for selection.
(A) Preliminary test: Candidates 15 times of the number of category-
wise vacancies will be shortlisted for main exam on the basis of
preliminary test. Preliminary test will comprise two papers having
total marks of 200-200 (total Four Hundred). Their marks obtained
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 23
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

7. Respondent No.1 approved the methodology and course of the A
Combined Civil Services Examination as advised by the Dubey Committee
will not be added with marks of main exam or interview. Exam of
both papers will be O.M.R. based. It will be necessary to fill OMR
in Preliminary Test properly otherwise, candidature will be
cancelled. It will be compulsory to include candidates in all subjects/
B
papers of Preliminary Test. Course of Preliminary Test is as under:-
SYLLABUS FOR THE PRELIMINARY TEST OF COMBINED
CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION- 2016
The Preliminary Examination shall consist of two compulsory papers,
each of 200 marks namely,
(i) General Studies Paper - I
(ii) General Studies Paper – II C
Both the question papers shall be of multiple choices, objective type.
The question papers will be set both in Hindi and English. However,
questions set to test the comprehensive skill and knowledge of language
and grammar shall be only in the concerned language, without providing
Hindi or English translation thereof.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(A) Main Exam: According to vacancies three times candidates will be invited D
for interview on the basis of main exam. Main exam will comprise 06
papers, total marks of which would be 1050. It would be mandatory for
candidates to appear in all the subjects/papers of Main Exam. Course of
Main Exam is as follows:-
MAIN EXAMINATION
[No optional subjects. All are common compulsory papers)
Subject Duration Full Marks Remarks E
Paper-I: General Hindi & General English, 3 hours 100 Descriptive Type This
having two separate sections on (i) General paper is qualifying in
Hindi and (ii) General English, each of 50 marks which minimum 30
marks is mandatory
Paper-II: Language and Literature: Under this 3 hours 150 Descriptive Type
paper, every candidate will have to opt for one
language and literature out of fifteen listed by the
commission
Paper-III: Social Science, having two distinct 3 hours 200 Descriptive Type
sections of (i) History (ii) Geography, each of F
equal weightage.
Paper-IV: Indian Constitution & Policy, Public 3 hours 200 Descriptive Type
Administration & Good Governance.
Paper-V: Indian Economy, Globalization and 3 hours 200 Descriptive Type
Sustainable Development.
Paper-VI: General Sciences, Environment & 3 hours 200 Descriptive Type
Technology Development.

These papers are common to all candidates.
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx G
“13. Minimum qualifying marks of Preliminary & Main Exam:-

H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A with modifications as suggested by the Commission and made it applicable
to the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination by its notification dated
25th September, 2013. However, later pursuant to the recommendations
of the High-Level Committee headed by the Minister in-charge,
respondent no.1 further amended the curriculum and methodology of
the Combined Civil Services Examination being conducted by respondent
B
no.3 (Commission) with change of pattern of examination vide notification
dated 21st April 2016.
8. Accordingly, the Commission published Advertisement No.23/
2016 holding 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 dated 6th
October, 2016. Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement which are the
C cause of dispute, with which we are concerned in the present batch of
appeals, are reproduced as under:
9. Pursuant to the advertisement of 6th Combined Civil Services
Examination, all the applicants, including the appellants and the private
respondents, appeared in the first instance in preliminary examination
D and the result of the preliminary examination was published on 23rd
February 2017, which was further updated on 2nd March, 2017 by
declaring the candidates 15 times of the number of vacancies to appear
in the main examination. On 13th April 2017, the result of the preliminary
examination was further declared and thereafter there was a series of
E litigation questioning the pattern or result of the preliminary examination
declared by the Commission and one of the issues of preliminary
examination travelled to this Court which came to be decided in Civil
Appeal no.9217 of 2018 by this Court by order dated 10 th September,
20183

F . minimum qualifying marks determined as above will be applicable
The
equally on all the written tests (Objective/Subjective) for various reserved
categories for competitive exams of all the services/cadres. It would be
mandatory for candidates of all the categories to obtain 30 marks in Paper-
I of Main Exam. (General Hindi & General English).
Note: In the light of Resolution No.8315 dated 16.09.2015 of the Department
of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Official Language, compulsion of
G obtaining minimum qualifying marks for interview in Civil Service competitive
Test has been discontinued.”
3
“O R D E R

Leave granted.
The controversy in the present appeal arose because certain answers
that were given to questions were considered to be incorrect in the preliminary
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 25
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

10. This Court has expressed that there appears to be an ambiguity A
in the terms of advertisement disclosed to the candidates who had
intended to participate in the selection process and that stipulation of
40% marks in the preliminary examination as opposed to two separate
papers in the examination, this Court expressed its opinion that the
candidate has to get 40% marks in the aggregate insofar as the two
B
papers are concerned. Although it was later indicated that what is being
expressed by this Court may not be treated as a precedent.
11. So far as the preliminary examination is concerned, even what
was expressed by this Court was not taken to be a final conclusion on
the issue, the learned Single Judge of the High Court revisited the scheme
of the selection process of preliminary examination decided the C
controversy in the case of Joy Guria Vs. State of Jharkhand and others
[W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018] under its judgment dated 20th December,
2018 holding that in the preliminary examination, the candidate has to
obtain qualifying marks in both the papers and after the list of successful
candidates was published, the main written examination was conducted D
from 28th January, 2019 to 1st February, 2019 and the result of the main
examination that was taken up by the candidates, which consisted of two
general papers.
The minimum marks, as stated in the advertisement, were said to
be 40 per cent for the unreserved category to be eligible, once the preliminary
examination had been taken, thereafter to proceed with the main examination. E
Since it is clear on a reading of the advertisement dated October,
2016 that 40 per cent is the marks of the preliminary examination as opposed
to marks of two separate papers in that examination, we are of the opinion that
this candidate was told that she has to get 40 percent in the aggregate insofar as
the two papers are concerned.
We have also been informed by the State Government that owning F
to the supposed ambiguity in the advertisement, a Committee has gone into the
same and has since opined what was meant by “preliminary examination” is
that 40 per cent minimum marks should be obtained in each paper.
We are of the view that the ambiguity, if any, in the advertisement
must fall in favour of the candidate who goes by the advertisement as it originally
stood.
Since it is clear that even without looking into the correctness of G
the answers, so far as six questions are concerned, that the petitioner has in fact
obtained 40 per cent in both the papers taken together, the appellant shall be
allowed to appear for the main examination.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Since the appellant alone is before us, we make it clear that anything
said in the order will not be treated as a precedent.” H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A examination was declared on 15th February, 2020 and all the successful
candidates in the written examination who fell in the zone of consideration
were called for viva voce and the result of the candidates who qualified
and successfully cleared all the stages, the final merit list was published
of the selected candidates by the Commission on 21st April, 2020 and
after the recommendations were approved by the Government of
B
Jharkhand, the successful candidates of the 6 th Combined Civil Services
Examination, 2016 against 326 posts were appointed on various dates
from June, 2020 to July, 2020 and so far as the appellants in the instant
batch of appeals are concerned, including other selected candidates,
were appointed by the Government vide notification dated 29th July 2020.
C 12. Several writ petitions later on came to be filed before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court assailing the result of the main
examination dated 21st April, 2020 of the 6th Combined Civil Services
Examination, 2016 and since there are contentious issues, as alleged,
came to be raised in the batch of writ petitions, the learned Single Judge
D of the High Court bifurcated the issues into four groups.
13. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, they belong
to the fourth group. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after
interpreting clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement read with Rule 16 of
the scheme of Rules 1951, arrived to a conclusion that so far as the main
E examination is concerned, Paper-I of General Hindi/General English,
was a qualifying paper for which the candidate has to secure 30 marks,
and the merit of the candidate is to be assessed on the basis of remaining
5 papers in which the candidate has to secure minimum qualifying marks
in each of the paper and since this procedure has not been followed by
the respondents, accordingly, by a common judgment dated 7th June,
F 2021, set aside the merit list prepared by the Commission with a direction
to prepare a fresh merit list with reference to the marks obtained in the
written test (5 papers) and viva-voce, without adding the marks of Paper-
I and thereafter the final select list may be drawn in accordance with
law.
G 14. It may be relevant to note that during the course of pendency
of the LPAs, interim applications were disposed of by the Division Bench
by an order dated 10th August 2021, wherein it was directed that the
parties shall maintain status-quo and it was further recorded that the
appellants have undertaken that they will not plead equity in case any
H adverse decision is passed by the High Court on the ground that the
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 27
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

appeal remained pending and during that period they remained in A
employment.
15. The issues which were framed for consideration by the Division
Bench of the High Court and held as under:
“Issue no.(i)
B
Whether the marks obtained in Paper-I were to be added in total
marks?
Issue no.(i) is answered by the High Court as under:-
that the marks obtained in Paper-I (Mains Examination) were not
to be added in total marks while preparing merit list for declaration C
of the candidature of one or the other candidate.
Issue no.(ii)
Whether the merit list prepared by the JPSC based upon the
‘aggregate qualifying marks’ of all subjects or ‘minimum qualifying
D
marks’ in each of the subjects, is considered to be correct?
Issue no.(iii)
Whether the stand which has been taken by the JPSC as also the
State before the Court of law based upon which the order has
been passed in Joy Guria (supra) or the contrary view taken E
while preparing the merit list of the successful candidate in 6 th
Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination conducted by
JPSC is considered to be correct?
Issue nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered by the High Court as
under:- F
(ii) ‘Minimum qualifying marks’ in each subject (Main Examination)
is correct interpretation; and
(iii) the stand which has been taken by the JPSC as also the State
before the Court of law based upon which the order has been
passed in Joy Guria (supra) is correct approach. G
16. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the marks
obtained in Paper I of Written Examination were not to be added in the
total marks and in terms of clause 13 of the advertisement, qualifying
marks have to be secured by the candidates in each subject paper (5
papers) which, according to the Division Bench, was in conformity with H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A Rule 16 of the Rules, 1951 under the judgment and order impugned
dated 23rd February 2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in
appeals before us.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submits that there is
no ambiguity or any later amendment in Rule 16 of the Rules, 1951 and
B so far as the proviso appended to Rule 16 is concerned, it has to be read
with clause (a) and (b) to Rule 16. Clause (a) gives discretion to the
Commission to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects at the
written examination. At the same time, clause (b) provides for qualifying
marks which can be fixed by the Commission in its discretion for the
candidates of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but shall not be higher
C than 35% for the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). If clause (a)
and (b) are read in conjunction, it makes it explicitly clear that clause (a)
is general in nature and emphasizes on the discretion of the Commission
to fix the qualifying marks in any or all subjects in reference to the
candidate appearing in the examination. However, clause (b) carves out
D an exception and only emphasizes for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates. So far as the proviso added to Rule 16 is
concerned, it postulates that only after crossing the threshold, the total
marks secured by the candidate would be taken into consideration for
determining the suitability of the candidate for appointment.
E 18. That apart, proviso to Rule 17 categorically empowers to relax
the norms for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes despite not having
secured the minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the Commission under
Rule 16(a) and (b) with the prior approval of the Government. Thus,
what is being observed by the Division Bench in interpreting proviso to
Rule 16 being confined to clause (b) alone and not to clause(a) and
F clause (b) is a complete misreading of the Rule 16 of the Rules 1951.
19. So far as the qualifying Paper I and determination of merit
based on the other 5 subject papers in the written examination is
concerned, learned counsel submits that clause 12(b) of the advertisement
clearly postulates that total number of marks would be 1050 and it will
G be mandatory for the candidates to appear in all the subjects/papers of
the main examination. Although the remarks-column in Paper-I indicates
that it is a qualifying paper in which minimum 30 marks are mandatory
and in the remaining subject papers, one has to secure 40% marks but
there is no indication whether it has to be in individual paper or the total
H marks obtained in the written examination for adjudging the suitability
for appointment.
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 29
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

20. Thus, in the given circumstances, what is being construed by A
the Commission in preparing the merit list of the candidates based on the
marks secured by the candidate out of 1050 marks for determining merit
in the written examination to be called for interview is a reasonable
interpretation which ordinarily was not open for the High Court to interfere
with within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the
B
Constitution.
21. Learned counsel further submits that the interpretation which
has been afforded by the High Court after deliberation may also be one
of the plausible interpretations in reference to clause 12 and 13 of the
advertisement but what is being interpreted by the Commission while
preparing the merit list of the written examination cannot be completely C
ruled out. In this state of affairs, the selection process which once has
attained finality and the appellants have been appointed after the
recommendations were approved by the State Government and have
completed the period of probation, merely because there was an interim
order passed by the High Court where an equity may not be claimed but D
for all practical purposes, they are working for almost two years by this
time, this fact cannot be ruled out and submits that in the given facts and
circumstances, the judgment passed by the High Court is not sustainable
in law.
22. Learned counsel further submits that if the respondents have E
consistently followed the practice in the past of preparing the merit list
on the basis of total marks secured by the candidate in the main
examination held earlier and that can be reasonably construed from clause
12 and 13 of the advertisement and there is no amendment to Rule 16 of
the scheme of Rules, 1951 and that being so, it was an apparent error
committed by the High Court in overruling the settled practice which F
was being followed consistently by the Commission for sufficiently long
time, in the given circumstances, there was no justification for the High
Court to unsettle the settled past practice followed by the Commission in
exercise of its limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution. G
23. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the procedure for selection for preliminary and main examination is to
be regulated in terms of clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement and it
only refers to the qualifying marks to be secured by the candidates, and
if Clause 12 and 13 are to be read in conjunction, the only irresistible H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A conclusion and the interpretation coming forward would be that Paper-
I of the written examination although is a part of the scheme of the
examination but one has to secure only 30% marks to qualify and the
merit list has to be determined on the basis of the written examination of
remaining subject papers (5 papers) in which the candidate has to secure
qualifying marks in each paper and that being the manifest error which
B
the Commission has committed in preparing the merit list and that has
been rectified by the High Court in the impugned judgment and the
respondents are equally qualified and they would have been placed in
the order of merit provided the Commission would have published the
list of selected candidates in conformity with clause 12 and 13 of the
C advertisement read with Rule 16 of the Rules 1951.
24. Learned counsel further submits that there is no delay on the
part of the respondents in approaching the Court for redressal of their
grievances and at least latches, in no manner, be attributed to them.
Once their right has been safeguarded by the interim order of which a
D reference has been made, at least their right of fair consideration in
revising the merit list of the written examination in terms of the order of
the Division Bench may not be interfered with by this Court.
25. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Rule 16 of the
scheme of the Rules, 1951 is concerned, if the punctuation mark is noticed
E after Rule 16(a), the Legislature in its wisdom has put a little full stop(.)
and after clause (b), there is colon(:), and thereafter, the proviso has
been added which clearly indicates that proviso is only related to clause
(b) to Rule 16 and this being the only irresistible interpretation of the
scheme of Rule 16 of Rules, 1951 which has been confirmed by the
High Court after a detailed discussion in the impugned judgment, binds
F the authority to take further action in publishing the merit list of the main
written examination in terms of the conditions of advertisement needs
no further interference of this Court.
26. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
G
27. Before we proceed to examine the questions raised in the
instant appeals, let us take the bird’s eye view of the scheme of Rules
1951. Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules 1951 relevant for the purpose are
reproduced hereinbelow:

H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 31
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

“15. The examination shall be held according to the syllabus A
specified in Appendix D to these rules which are liable to alteration
from time to time by the Commission with the prior approval of
the State Government.
16. (a) The Commission shall have discretion to fix the qualifying
marks in any or all the subjects at the written examination. B
(b) The minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be higher
than 35% for the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch), and
30% for the Bihar Junior Civil Service unless the number of such
candidates qualifying at the written test according to the standards C
applied for other candidates is considerably in excess of the
number of candidates required to fill all the vacancies reserved
for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:
Provided that in determining the suitability of a particular
candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written D
examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject
shall be taken into consideration.
(c) There shall be no qualifying marks for the viva voce test.
17. On the basis of the marks obtained at the written examination,
the Commission shall arrange for a viva voce test of the candidates E
who have qualified at the written examination according to Rule
16 (a) or (b):
Provided that in exceptional circumstances and with the
prior approval of Government, the Commission may, at their
discretion, admit candidates of the Scheduled Castes and F
Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce test even though they may not
have obtained the minimum qualifying marks at the written test
prescribed in Clause (a) or (b) of Rule 16.”
28. The undisputed facts which may be noticed for completion of
facts referred to supra clearly manifest that the 6th Combined Civil G
Services Examination was notified by the Commission on 6 th October,
2016 for filling up of 326 posts of different services under the State of
Jharkhand and recruitment is to be made in terms of the Bihar Civil
Service (Executive Branch) and Rules, 1951 which were adopted by
the State of Jharkhand by notification dated 9th November 2002.
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A 29. Before the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination came to
be initiated, there was lot of discussion prior thereto, and after the
acceptance of Dubey Committee’s report with certain modifications by
the Commission, finally came to be approved by the State Government
vide its notification dated 25th September, 2013 and after going through
the process of selection followed with the recommendations made by
B
the Commission, appointments are made by order dated 29th July, 2020
and after completing field training, they have been posted to their
respective places of posting.
30. It may be apposite to note that the State of Jharkhand has
now notified the rules framed in exercise of power conferred under
C proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution, namely, the Jharkhand
Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021(hereinafter being
referred to as the “Rules 2021”) and apart from the other provisions of
the scheme of Rules, Rule 17 lays down the criteria of prescribing the
minimum qualifying/aggregate marks to be obtained by the candidate in
D the main examination for preparing the merit list for the purpose of
interview and in furtherance to the Rules 2021, selection process has
been initiated by respondent no. 3 holding 7th Combined Civil Services
Examination, 2016 vide advertisement no. 1/2021 dated 8th February
2021.
E 31. Thus, what is being decided by the Division Bench of the
High Court under the impugned judgment may remain confined to the
6th Combined Civil Services Examination alone since all future selections
shall be held by the State of Jharkhand under the scheme of Rules 2021.
32. If we look into the element of the examination pattern, the
F candidates who entered into participation of the selection process have
to first qualify the preliminary examination and marks obtained in the
examination shall not be added in the main examination as being referred
to in clause 12(a) but there were series of litigations before the preliminary
examination could be finalized and the result, in the first instance, was
published on 23rd February, 2017 which came to be further revised on
G 13th April, 2017 and thereafter, because of litigation, it was again revised
on 11th August, 2017 followed by 6th August, 2018 and finally, the second
revised result of preliminary examination was published on 6th August,
2018 declaring 34,634 candidates successful for appearing in the mains
examination.
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 33
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

33. One of the candidates who was not satisfied by the orders A
passed by the High Court came to this Court in Civil Appeal no.9217 of
2018 and this Court by Order dated 10th September, 2018 disposed of
the same with the observation that there is an ambiguity in the conditions
of advertisement and minimum qualifying marks of 40% are for the
aggregate and not for each subject.
B
34. This was not rested at this stage. The High Court, in the case
of Joy Guria and others(supra), which relates to Preliminary
Examination, again examined the result of the preliminary examination
and by judgment dated 20th December, 2018 held that such of the persons
who did not secure minimum qualifying marks in both the papers of
preliminary examination are not qualified to participate in the main C
examination as Clause 13 of the advertisement applies to each subject
separately.
35. After a long battle, the Commission proceeded further and
conducted the main examination during the period 28th January, 2019
and 1st February, 2019 and the result was finally declared on 15th February, D
2020 and the recommendations were made by the Commission to the
State Government including allocation of service on 29th June, 2020 and
after approval of the recommendations made, the appointments were
made by the State Government by Order dated 29th July 2020. At this
stage, all the candidates had completed their full training and have been E
given their respective postings.
36. We have examined the submissions and the counter
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
37. So far as Rule 16 of Rules, 1951 is concerned, it is true that if
we go through the bare punctuation marks which have been highlighted F
by the counsel for the respondents, it certainly makes a distinction between
clause (a) and clause (b) but for proper interpretation and to make the
scheme of rules workable, sometimes punctuation marks may give a
different impression and that cannot be taken in isolation for the
interpretation of the scheme of rules. If we read clause (a) and (b) of G
Rule 16 conjointly, it clearly manifests that clause (a) is general and
precise for the candidates who are participating in the written examination
whereas clause (b) refers to the candidates who belong to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes leaving the discretion of the Commission
to fix qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but with
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A restriction that shall not be higher than 35% in Bihar Civil Services
(Executive Branch).
38. The proviso added thereto relates to the stage for determining
the suitability of the candidate, total marks obtained in the written
examination has to be counted and not the marks obtained in any particular
B subject for preparing the list of candidates who qualify the written
examination and this can be made further clear by taking note of Rule
17 of the Rules which casts an obligation upon the Commission to collate
the marks obtained by the candidate in the written examination and the
Commission shall arrange for viva-voce the candidates who have qualified
the written examination according to Rule 16(a) or 16(b), as the case
C may be, and at this stage the Commission keeps a discretion and in
exceptional circumstances may admit a member from the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce test, even if they have
failed to qualify the minimum qualifying marks with the prior approval of
the Government and this being the scheme of Rules, proviso to Rule 16
D has to be read for both the clause (a) and (b) to Rule 16 and cannot be
read in reference to clause (b) alone as held by the High Court under the
impugned judgment.
39. So far as the two questions which have been answered by the
High Court in reference to whether the marks obtained in Paper-I would
E be added in total marks or whether the merit list is to be prepared based
on the total marks at the written examination or minimum qualifying
marks in each of the subject papers of written examination are concerned,
after examining clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement in particular, read
with Rule 16 of Rules 1951, we are of the view that there is certainly an
ambiguity in the advertisement itself.
F
40. If we examine clause 12(a) in reference to the preliminary
examination, it may indicate that according to vacancies, fifteen times
candidates will be shortlisted for main examination and as per clause
12(b), the main examination will comprise of 06 papers, total marks of
which would be 1050 and it would be mandatory for the candidate to
G appear in all the subjects/papers of Main Examination. But for Paper-I,
minimum 30 marks as qualifying marks has been prescribed and all the
6 papers are common and candidate has to appear in all the papers with
the minimum qualifying marks for the respective category as indicated
in clause 13 of the advertisement but whether it is the total marks obtained
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 35
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

at the written examination or qualifying marks obtained in all the papers A
separately is not clear under the terms of advertisement.
41. It is true that it can be construed in both ways. The main
examination is comprising of 6 papers, total marks would be 1050 and
candidate has to appear in all the papers of the main examination. This
could be one construction that qualifying marks in paper-I is 30% but in B
other subject papers, it may be 40% or as fixed for the respective category
and whether it has to be aggregate or qualifying marks in each paper is
indeed not clear and ambiguity is there in the conditions of advertisement,
of which a detailed reference has been made. At this stage, we take
assistance of Rule 16 of the scheme of Rules, 1951 read with the proviso
which gives a different indication. C

42. This Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Another vs. Union of
India and Others4 while examining the recruitment rules for Assistant
Engineers in the Public Works Department and taking into consideration
the procedure which has been followed by the department for sufficiently
long time observed that the construction of the scheme of rules which is D
in consonance with long standing practice prevailing in the concerned
department is untenable to require upsetting it and if the past practice is
based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the
rules upsetting the same could not be appropriate and in para 4 this
Court held as under:- E
“4. In our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed. There is sufficient
material including the admission of respondents diploma-holders
that the practice followed in the department for a long time was
that in the case of diploma-holder Junior Engineers who obtained
the degree during service, the period of three years’ service in the F
grade for eligibility for promotion as degree-holders commenced
from the date of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of
service as diploma-holders was not counted for this purpose. This
earlier practice was clearly admitted by the respondents diploma-
holders in para 5 of their application made to the Tribunal at page
115 of the paper book. This also appears to be the view of the G
Union Public Service Commission contained in their letter dated
December 6, 1968 extracted at pages 99-100 of the paper book in
the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. The real question,
therefore, is whether the construction made of this provision
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 584 H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A in the rules on which the past practice extending over a
long period is based is untenable to require upsetting it. If
the past practice is based on one of the possible
constructions which can be made of the rules then upsetting
the same now would not be appropriate. It is in this perspective
that the question raised has to be determined”.
B
(emphasis supplied)
43. In the instant case, the view which has been adopted by the
Commission and that has been considered and held by the High Court in
the impugned judgment may be better circumscribed but both are equally
C possible views and either of the one could not be ruled out or outrightly
negated.
44. In the given situation, when one possible view has been acted
upon by the Commission and pursuant to which the recommendations
were made and after approval of the State Government, candidates have
D been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be
unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a U-Turn in
compliance of the impugned judgment, and non-suit the candidates who
are working for sufficiently long time.
45. Though it has been observed by the High Court that equity
E may not be claimed by the candidates but this Court cannot be oblivious
of the fact that such of the candidates who are working for sufficiently
two years by this time and have completed their period of probation
were not at fault at any point of time but because the interpretation
acted upon by the Commission was not acceptable to the High Court,
they became a victim and that apart, we are also of the view that what
F is being observed by the High Court may only be confined to 6th Combined
Civil Services Examination, 2016 for the reason that the State has now
introduced the scheme of Rules, 2021 and fresh process has been initiated
under 7th Combined Civil Services Examination 2016. In the given
circumstances, what has been observed by the High Court may be one
G of the propositions in interpreting clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement
but what is being considered by the Commission in its right earnest also
cannot be ruled out.
46. It is well known that punctuation marks by themselves do not
control the meaning of the statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious.
The ordinary rule is that punctuation mark is a minor element in the
H
BARUN KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 37
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

interpretation of statute, more so, when it is a case of subordinate A
legislation. If we go through the scheme of the Rules 1951, we are clear
that proviso to Rule 16 has to be read in conjunction to both Clause (a)
and (b) and not to clause (b) in particular as being observed by the High
Court in the impugned judgment.
47. It may be noticed that the judgment in Joy Guria and B
others(supra) referred to by the High Court is in reference to the
preliminary examination and the Division Bench under the impugned
judgment was influenced by those observations while examining the
scheme of the main examination held by the Commission pursuant to 6 th
Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016. To the contrary, it was to
be interpreted independently on the basis of the scheme of Rules 1951 C
read with Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement.
48. Consequently, the appeals deserve to succeed and accordingly
allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 23rd February,
2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.
D
49. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO(S).1100 OF 2022
50. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no
reason to entertain the transfer petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed. E
51. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
F

G

H