Patna High Court
Rama Shankar, (Udi No. … vs The State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.497 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17205 of 2022
======================================================
Rama Shankar, (UID No. RAM13101983LAW00440767), Son of
Ramchandra Pandit, Resident of House No. 49, Road No.39, Raghunath Tola,
Anishabad, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna, Bihar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Higher Education Council through the Chairman, Patna,
Bihar.
4. The Chairman, Bihar State Higher Education Council, Patna, Bihar.
5. The Bihar State University Service Commission through the Chairman,
Patna, Bihar.
6. The Chairman, Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Patna University, Patna through the Vice- Chancellor.
8. Quemre Alam Son of Azazul Haque Resident of Village-Sandali, P.O. and
P.S. - Barauli, District- Gopalganj -Bihar-841405.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Mr. Abhinave Alok, AC to AAG-13
For the BSUSC : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Diksha, Advocate
For the P.U. : Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For the Resp No.8 : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Md. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
2/26
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 25-03-2026
Heard the learned Senior Advocate(s)/Advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
2. The present intra-court appeal challenges the
judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17205 of
2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner/appellant, seeking allocation and preferential posting
at Patna University under the EBC category, was rejected on the
grounds stated therein.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present
appeal, are summarized as follows:-
(i) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section
36(7) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and the Patna
University Act, 1976 (as amended from time to time), the
Hon'ble Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar approved the
Statutes governing the appointment of Assistant Professors in
the Universities of Bihar. A notification to this effect was issued
vide Memo No. BSU (Statute)-25/1472/GS(I) dated 10.08.2020.
In accordance with the provisions contained in the said Statutes
and based on the requisition received from the Education
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
3/26
Department, Government of Bihar, for filling up the vacant
posts of Assistant Professor in various Universities and their
constituent colleges in the subject of "Law," the Bihar State
University Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to
as "the Commission"), issued Advertisement No. AP-LAW-
40/20-21
P dated 21.09.2020.
(ii) Pursuant to the said advertisement, online
applications were invited from eligible candidates in the
prescribed format. A total of 15 posts of Assistant Professor
(Law) were advertised, out of which, 5 posts reserved for
Extremely Backward Class (EBC), 5 posts for Unreserved
category, 2 posts for Scheduled Caste (SC), and 1 post each for
Backward Class (BC), Economically Weaker Section (EWS),
and Scheduled Caste (SC). Eligible candidates, including the
writ petitioner/appellant and respondent no. 8, submitted their
applications. Upon completion of the selection process, the
Commission published the final select list along with the
allocation of universities vide Important Notice No. 1220 dated
30.09.2022. The name of the writ petitioner/appellant appeared
at serial no. 4 under the Unreserved category, and he was
allotted Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur
(T.M.B.U.), in accordance with his merit position.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
4/26
(iii) The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the action
of the Commission in appointing him as Assistant Professor
(Law) at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur,
allegedly disregarding his preference for appointment at Patna
University, Patna, filed C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022.
(iv) Upon notice, respondent no. 8 entered his
appearance and filed a counter affidavit opposing the
petitioner’s claim. The State and the Commission also filed their
respective counter affidavit(s), categorically asserting that the
entire selection process was conducted strictly in accordance
with the terms of the advertisement and the Statutes of 2020
governing the selection procedures. It was contended that there
was no illegality or irregularity in the selection and appointment
of the writ petitioner/appellant and/or in his allocation to Tilka
Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
(v) The learned Single Judge, after considering the
submissions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties
and examining the relevant provisions of the advertisement as
well as the Statutes of 2020, held that the respondents had acted
in conformity with Clause 9 of the advertisement dated
21.09.2020, Clause 4.1 of Chapter IV, and Clause 5.5 of Chapter
V of the Statutes of 2020. Accordingly, the writ petition was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
5/26
dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the writ
petitioner/appellant has preferred the present intra-court appeal.
4. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant, while assailing the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, submitted that
the appellant, an Extremely Backward Category (EBC)
candidate, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Law)
pursuant to the captioned advertisement. It is undisputed that the
appellant secured Rank 4 under the Unreserved (UR) category
and Rank 1 under the EBC category. Despite having indicated
Patna University as his 1st preference, the appellant was allotted
Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University under the UR category. This
allotment, it is contended, was made in derogation of both his
higher merit position and stated preference, particularly when
two EBC category vacancies were available in Patna University.
Such allocation, therefore, violates the settled doctrine of merit-
cum-preference governing the process of allocation and
migration. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and inequitable allotment,
the appellant challenged the action of the respondent authorities.
However, the learned Single Judge, it is submitted,
mechanically applied Clause 9 of the advertisement along with
Clauses 4.1 and 5.5 of the Statutes, 2020, without examining
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
6/26
whether such an interpretation results in the impermissible
consequence of prejudicing higher-merit reserved category
candidates. It is further contended that the action of the
Commission runs contrary to the principles governing
migration, as authoritatively laid down by the Constitution
Bench in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram & Ors. [(2010) 7
SCC 234].
5. Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate, further
contended that the writ court erred in treating the statutory roster
provisions as overriding the constitutional doctrine of merit-
cum-preference. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Satya
Prakash & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 550], wherein it was held that
even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, the principle
of migration must operate so as to enhance, and not diminish,
the prospects of meritorious candidates. It is further submitted
that neither the captioned advertisement nor the Statutes of 2020
provide any express mechanism governing the migration of
meritorious candidates in accordance with their merit-cum-
preference. In such a situation, it is argued, the binding judicial
precedents governing the field must prevail and be strictly
adhered to.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
7/26
6. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anurag
Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2005) 9 SCC 742],
State of Bihar & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra, Etc. [(1996) 6
SCC 36], Rajasthan High Court and Anr. v. Rajat Yadav and
Ors.[(2025) SCC OnLine SC 2931] and Tripurari Sharan &
Anr. v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav & Ors. [(2018), 2 SCC 656].
7. Referring to the afore-noted decisions, it is
contended that the law is now well-settled that the principle of
migration is not merely statutory but constitutional in character,
being firmly rooted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It is thus submitted that the migration of meritorious
reserved category candidates to the general category cannot
operate to their detriment, particularly by depriving them of
their preferred posts or institutions, as such an outcome would
be manifestly arbitrary and violative of the equality mandate.
8. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Advocate for the
Commission, submitted that the Commission, being a recruiting
agency, is duty bound by the provision of the Statute for
appointment as Assistant Professor in the Universities of Bihar,
2020, as well as the stipulation laid down in the captioned
advertisement. Referring to Clause 4.1 and 5.5 of the Statutes, it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
8/26
is submitted that if a candidate under reserved category qualifies
in the general merit list, he/she will be selected under general
category and accordingly the Commission will prepare a
composite merit list of the subjects on the vacancies and
reservation roster. Out of this composite merit list, a University-
wise panel, with due consideration of preference of Universities
given by the candidates, will be prepared for onward
transmission to the department of the concerned University. It is
further contended that Clause 9.2 of the advertisement
specifically prescribes that if a candidate of reserved category
becomes eligible for merit list of unreserved category, his/her
appointment will be made in the general category and such a
candidate will be allotted a post against a vacancy of general
category, with due consideration of his order of merit and
preference of the Universities.
9. Similarly, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.8, dispelling the
contention of learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, has
submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the
prescription of the Statutes and the terms of the advertisement
and held that the petitioner was selected in the unreserved
category because of his performance in selection process and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
9/26
allotted Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, which was the
second preference of the petitioner, wherein the post of Assistant
Professor was meant for the unreserved category, because the
three posts advertised for Patna University were reserved for
candidates of EBC and SC category. Strong reliance has been
placed on the terms of the Statutes as well as the advertisement.
It is vehemently contended that the name of the writ
petitioner/appellant was recommended for appointment against
the post of Assistant Professor (Law) in accordance with Clause
9.2 of the advertisement, which categorically prescribes that the
candidate of reserved category becomes eligible for being
considered in merit list of unreserved category and his
appointment will be made in the general category and, as such,
the petitioner was allotted a post against the vacancy of general
category. Hence, the action of the Commission does not suffer
from any infirmity whatsoever in the eyes of law. It is further
contended that now the writ-petitioner/appellant has already
submitted his joining and has been discharging his duty in
TMBU, Bhagalpur, against the seat reserved for general
category candidate; he is clearly estopped in law from raising
any grievance.
10. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, further
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
10/26
contended that respondent no. 8 was previously working on the
post of Section Officer (Legal) at Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh. However, upon his selection and appointment pursuant
to the notification dated 25.03.2023 issued by the Patna
University for the post of Assistant Professor (Law), he duly
tendered his resignation and thereafter joined the said post
against the vacancy reserved for candidates belonging to the
EBC category, for which he had applied. It is further submitted
that any alteration or deviation from the posting in accordance
with the preference exercised by respondent no. 8 would cause
serious prejudice and would be detrimental to the legal rights
accrued to him under the relevant Statutes. Moreover, the writ
petitioner/appellant has at no point of time challenged the
validity of the Statutes 2020, or the terms of the advertisement
issued thereunder, pursuant to which he has been posted at
T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur.
11. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, while
concluding his submissions, further contended that the
Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Ramesh Ram (supra)
is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present
case. He submitted that the migration rule enunciated therein
was premised upon a specific provision contained in Rule 16(2)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
11/26
of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules, which expressly
permits a Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidate to
exercise an option between allocation under the general
category and the respective reserved category. It is argued that
no such provision exists in the present framework. In the instant
case, the posts across different universities are identical in
nature, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to any
candidate if allotment is made strictly in accordance with the
merit-based roster, irrespective of the university assigned.
12. Before coming to the legality of the order/
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it would be apt
and proper to take note of the relevant decisions placed by the
learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant,
and its applicability in the present case.
13. Coming to the Constitution Bench decision in
Ramesh Ram (supra), wherein a challenge was made to the
constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the
Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules for the years 2005-
2007, framed by the Union Public Service Commission. A three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated
14.05.2009, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench,
observing that it raised substantial questions of constitutional
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
12/26
importance. The principal issue for consideration was whether
candidates belonging to reserved categories, who are
recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on the basis
of their own merit without availing any relaxation or concession
are entitled to opt for a higher preference of service by being
considered under the reserved category, thereby permitting
migration from the general category to the reserved category at
the stage of service allocation.
14. The Constitution Bench, inter alia, formulated the
following questions for determination:
“(i) whether reserved category
candidates who are selected on merit and
placed in the list of general category candidates
can nevertheless be treated as reserved
category candidates at the stage of service
allocation;
(ii) whether Rule 16(2), 16(3), 16(4),
and 16(5) of the CSE Rules are inconsistent
with Rule 16(1) and violative of Articles 14, 16,
and 335 of the Constitution of India;
and (iii) whether the principles
governing reservation in admissions to
educational institutions can be applied in
assessing the constitutionality of reservation
policies in the context of civil services.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
13/26
15. The Constitution Bench, while answering issue (i),
was pleased to hold that Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC)
candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are
ultimately adjusted against reserved category vacancies are to be
counted within the reserved pool for the purpose of computing
the overall reservation quota. Consequently, the vacancies
vacated by such MRC candidates in the general/unreserved
category are to be filled by candidates belonging to the general
category. The Court thus found no legal impediment to the
migration of MRC candidates from the general category to the
reserved category at the stage of service allocation.
16. While addressing issue (ii), the Constitution Bench
upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, observing that
the incorporation of such a rule is intended to prevent
arbitrariness and to safeguard the interests of meritorious
candidates belonging to reserved categories. It was further held
that declaring such provisions redundant or unconstitutional
would defeat the very objective of the equality clause enshrined
under Articles 14, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India,
inasmuch as MRC candidates though qualifying on general
standards would be placed at a disadvantage. This is because
candidates lower in merit within the same reserved category
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
14/26
could, by availing reservation benefits, secure more preferred
service allocations.
17. In answering issue (iii), the Constitution Bench
categorically observed that, having regard to the distinctive
features of the Civil Services Examination conducted by the
Union Public Service Commission, candidates belonging to
reserved categories such as OBC, SC, and ST, who are selected
on merit and placed in the general/unreserved list, are entitled to
opt for migration to their respective reserved categories at the
stage of service allocation. The Constitution Bench further
distinguished the decision in Anurag Patel (supra) on the basis
of the factual matrix involved therein, holding that the same was
not applicable to the issues arising in the present case.
18. Coming to the case of Satya Prakash (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no reserved category candidate
recommended by the Commission without resorting to the
relaxed standard opts a preference from the reserved category, in
the process the choice of preference of the reserved category
recommended by resorting to the relaxed standard will be
pushed further down but shall be allotted to any of the
remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after
allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
15/26
service/post in accordance with their preference.
19. Suffice it to observe, the case of Satya Prakash
(supra) was also in relation to the appointment against the
vacant post of different categories under the Civil Services
Examination rules conducted by the Union Public Service
Commission.
20. Further, in the case of Anurag Patel (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a reserved category
candidate secure higher general merit, the allocation must still
be governed by merit-cum-preference, ensuring no prejudice to
a more meritorious reserved category candidate.
21. Similarly in the case of Rajat Yadav (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-7 of its judgment held that
migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to general
category candidates cannot disadvantage by depriving them of
preferred post/services. If migration causes loss of preferred
reserved post/service, the candidate must be allowed to claim it
within the reserved quota to prevent such unfairness and to
ensure that reservation functions as an instrument of inclusion
rather than an instrument of disadvantage.
22. In the case of Tripurari Sharan (supra),the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reservation provision must
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
16/26
not operate to the disadvantage of the meritorious reserved
category candidates.
23. Similarly in M. Neethi Chandra (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in essence, held that the principle of
protective discrimination cannot be applied in a manner that
operates to the detriment of meritorious candidates belonging to
reserved categories. The Court accordingly struck down the
method of allocation whereby a meritorious reserved category
candidate was denied a more advantageous post solely on
account of being adjusted against the general/unreserved
category.
24. Now, coming to the relevant provisions of the
Statutes, 2020 and the advertisement, this Court deems it
appropriate to reproduce paragraph 12 of the judgment dated
04.04.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022, wherein the
same have been extracted for ready reference:
“12. Clause 9 of the Advertisement;
Chapter-4 and Clauses 5.0 and 5.5 of Chapter-5
of the Statutes of 2020 as relied on by the
contesting parties are extracted hereinbelow for
ready reference:
“9. Allotment of University
9.1 The Commission will prepare a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
17/26subject wise common merit list as per vacancy
and reservation roster. Out of this common
merit list, university wise merit list will be
drawn with due consideration of the order of
preference given by the Candidates.
9.2 If a candidate of reserved category
becomes eligible for the merit list of unreserved
category, his appointment will be made in the
general category and such a candidate will be
allotted a post against a vacancy of general
category, with due consideration of the order of
his preference for universities.
9.3 The candidate should mark order
of preference for all the related universities.
………………………………………………….
Chapter-4
4.0. Reservation
4.1 The current Reservation Policy of
the State Govt. as applicable on the date of
advertisement will strictly be followed
categorywise and subject-wise as per the roster
prepared by the university administration/state
govt. If a candidate under reserved category
qualifies in the general merit list he/she will be
selected under general category.
Chapter-5
5.0 Selection Process
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
18/26
5.5 The Commission will prepare a
composite merit list of the subjects on the basis
of vacancies and reservation roster. Out of this
composite merit list a University wise panel,
with due consideration of preference of
universities given by the candidates, will be
prepared for onward transmission to the
department/university.”
25. Before adverting to the relevant prescriptions
referred to hereinabove, it would be pertinent to take note of the
admitted position that the appellant had applied for the post of
Assistant Professor (Law) in different universities pursuant to
the captioned advertisement under the EBC category, indicating
his first preference as Patna University, Patna, followed by
T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur and Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar
University, Muzaffarpur. Out of three vacancies available in the
subject of Law at Patna University, two vacancies were reserved
for the EBC category and one for the Scheduled Caste category.
Upon completion of the selection process, the appellant secured
Rank 4 in the Unreserved (UR) category and Rank 1 in the EBC
category. Since the appellant qualified in the general merit list,
his appointment was made under the Unreserved category, and
he was allotted T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur based on his merit position
in the UR category.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
19/26
26. In the aforesaid undisputed facts, this Court now
proceeds to examine the relevant prescriptions.
27. In the opinion of this Court, after going through
the above referred prescriptions of the Statues, there is no
dispute that once a candidate belonging to a reserved category
qualifies on the basis of merit in the unreserved category, such
candidate is to be treated as a general category candidate. The
Commission is required to prepare a composite merit list of the
subject, taking into account the vacancies, the reservation roster,
and the preferences of universities indicated by the candidates.
28. Clause 9 of the advertisement deals with the
allotment of universities, and Clause 9.2 thereof clearly
stipulates that a reserved category candidate who secures a
position in the unreserved merit list shall be appointed against a
general category vacancy. However, the said clause further
mandates that due consideration must be given to the order of
preference of universities indicated by such candidate.
29. Admittedly, the first preference of the appellant
was Patna University under the EBC category, to which he
belongs. There was no preference indicated by the appellant as a
general category candidate for any university.
30. It is true that Clause 9.2 provides that once a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
20/26
reserved category candidate qualifies under the unreserved
category, his appointment shall be made against a general
category vacancy. However, we cannot lose sight that the said
prescription also categorically emphasizes that due
consideration must be given to the candidate’s order of
preference for universities; failure to accord preference does not
appear to be in tune with the prescription of Statues, 2020 and
the captioned advertisement. We must keep in mind
interpretation of any Statute must be in consonance with Article
14 of the Constitution and if it is found otherwise, it would be
termed as ‘unsustainable in law’.
31. Further, failure to accord due weightage to the
preference of universities, despite the candidate having secured
a higher position in merit than others who are placed below him,
would certainly operate to the disadvantage of a more
meritorious candidate.
32. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul
[(1996) 3 SCC 253], wherein the Court considered the issue as
to whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who
qualifies on the basis of merit in open competition, ought to be
counted against the reserved quota or treated as a candidate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
21/26
under the unreserved category. The Hon’ble Court categorically
held that such a candidate is required to be treated as a general
category candidate. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“17. … In view of the legal position
enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases
the conclusion is irresistible that a student who
is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit
though belonging to a reserved category cannot
be considered to be admitted against seats
reserved for reserved category. But at the same
time the provisions should be so made that it
will not work out to the disadvantage of such
candidate and he may not be placed at a more
disadvantageous position than the other less
meritorious reserved category candidates. The
aforesaid objective can be achieved if after
finding out the candidates from amongst the
reserved category who would otherwise come in
the open merit list and then asking their option
for admission into the different colleges which
have been kept reserved for reserved category
and thereafter the cases of less meritorious
reserved category candidates should be
considered and they be allotted seats in
whichever colleges the seats should be
available. In other words, while a reserved
category candidate entitled to admission on the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
22/26basis of his merit will have the option of taking
admission in the colleges where a specified
number of seats have been kept reserved for
reserved category but while computing the
percentage of reservation he will be deemed to
have been admitted as an open category
candidate and not as a reserved category
candidate.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated and
reaffirmed in a catena of decisions. Recently, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tripurari Sharan (supra) underscored that
the law is well settled that reservation provisions must not
operate to the disadvantage of meritorious reserved category
candidates. A meritorious reserved category candidate should
not be placed in a worse position than less meritorious
candidates of the same category.
34. The afore-mentioned objectives can be achieved
by first identifying those reserved category candidates who
qualify on merit in the open category and thereafter allowing
them the option of allocation based on their preferences. The
less meritorious reserved category candidates may then be
considered against the reserved vacancies. In other words, a
reserved category candidate who is selected on merit is entitled
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
23/26
to be treated as a general category candidate for the purposes of
selection; however, such treatment must not deprive him of the
benefit of his higher merit and his indicated preferences.
35. It would be apposite to refer to the decision
rendered in Rajat Yadav (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while concluding the matter, deemed it appropriate to
enter a caveat in paragraph 74, observing as follows:-
“74. A situation could arise, if the
aforesaid principles were applied, of a reserved
category candidate based on his/her
performance outshining General/Open
candidates and figuring in the General merit
list, but finding the options to be limited. He/she
may, as a consequence of being counted as a
General candidate, lose out on a preferred
service or a preferred post because the same is
reserved for a reserved category candidate.
Should such an eventuality occur, the same is
bound to breed dissatisfaction, disappointment
and displeasure which are not in the interests of
public service. After all, fairness matters even
in public employment. Where adjustment
against the unreserved category would result in
a more meritorious reserved category candidate
being displaced in favour of a less meritorious
candidate within the same category for a
preferred service or a preferred post within the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
24/26reserved quota, the former must be permitted to
be considered against the service/post in the
reserved quota. This would ensure merit being
preserved both across categories and within
them, and that reservation functions as a means
of inclusion rather than an instrument of
disadvantage.”
36. After meticulously considering the rulings of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion
that under no circumstances can the merit of a candidate be
rendered a disadvantage to his position by denying him the
benefit of his preferred admission or posting. Such denial would
be wholly impermissible, particularly when less meritorious
candidates belonging to the reserved category have been
extended such benefits. A candidate who, on account of his
higher merit, is placed in the unreserved category cannot be
treated in a manner that places him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis
candidates with lower merit who continue to avail benefits
under the reserved category. Merit cannot operate as a penal
factor. Even in a situation where the posts across different
universities are identical, the preference indicated by a
candidate and his merit ranking, cannot be disregarded by
treating the merit of a person to its disadvantage.
37. This Court does not find any embargo, either
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
25/26
under the Statutes or the advertisement, in extending due
consideration to the order of preference indicated by a
candidate. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if a
candidate belonging to a reserved category qualifies in the merit
list of the unreserved category, his appointment shall
undoubtedly be made against a general category vacancy;
however, his preference, as indicated at the time of application,
must be duly considered. Such an interpretation alone would
subserve the constitutional mandate enshrined under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any deviation from the
aforesaid principles would amount to an infraction of the settled
propositions of law as noted hereinabove.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussion(s), this Court
finds merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly,
the same stands allowed.
39. The judgment/order dated 04.04.2025 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside. Consequently, C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2025
also stands allowed.
40. The Bihar State University Service Commission is
directed, in compliance with the present order, to issue a fresh
order of posting in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant strictly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
26/26
in accordance with his indicated preference.
41. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ): I agree.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 17.03.2026 Uploading Date 25-03-2026 Transmission Date