Mirza Ali Raza & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
Following a 1989 combined competitive examination for Gazetted posts in Bihar, a dispute arose over which reservation policy resolution (1978 or 1990) applied to the selection, since the 1990 resolution was later quashed by a court. Years of litigation followed: a Single Judge declined to interfere with the selection, a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal directed the State to either create "shadow posts" or push down candidates who had benefited from the quashed policy, and the State's 2004 compliance order led to further contempt proceedings. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the appellants and some petitioners had been holding their posts for over 25 years under interim court orders.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that most of the originally aggrieved officers had already had their grievances redressed by an earlier 2004 order (which the Division Bench had accepted as compliance), leaving only a small number of persons with any continuing grievance, and even they had not pursued further remedies despite being given liberty to do so. Given that the appellants and transferred-case petitioners had held their posts without serious challenge for more than 25 years, the Court held it would cause no prejudice to anyone to let them continue in those posts until superannuation, without reference to the State's 2004 reordering. It disposed of the appeal and both transferred cases on this basis, extending the same benefit to identically placed applicants in pending interlocutory applications, while expressly clarifying that the order was confined to the peculiar facts of this case and could not be cited as a precedent.
Lesson Learnt
Courts are reluctant to disturb long-settled employment status, even where a selection's legal basis was later found flawed, once decades have passed and affected parties have not actively pursued available remedies; delay and acquiescence can effectively cement a status quo.