Sweety Kumari vs The State of Bihar
Background
Three candidates who had cleared the Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examinations (30th and 31st) with marks above the cut-off had their candidatures rejected by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC): two for not producing original character certificates at the time of interview (only certified photocopies were available), and one for not having received her law degree certificate in time due to delay. Their writ petitions were dismissed by the Patna High Court, which relied on an earlier ruling against a similarly-placed candidate, Aarav Jain, in a different case. Meanwhile, in a separate matter, the Supreme Court had already ruled in favour of Aarav Jain and seven other candidates in near-identical circumstances, directing the State to accommodate them.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under the applicable recruitment rules and the advertisement's own clauses, producing original certificates at the interview stage was only directory, not mandatory, since the candidates already possessed the required certificates before the application deadline and had submitted certified true copies. Relying on its own earlier ruling in the Aarav Jain case and the principle that eligibility (possessing the certificate) is distinct from proof of eligibility (producing it on demand), the Court set aside all three High Court judgments and directed that the three appellants be appointed/accommodated on par with the Aarav Jain batch, since the State confirmed it could adjust vacancies to accommodate them.
Lesson Learnt
A candidate cannot be denied a job they otherwise qualify for merely because a procedural document (like an original certificate) wasn't physically produced on a specific date, if the underlying qualification/eligibility genuinely existed earlier and a certified copy was on record, recruiting bodies cannot treat directory formalities as mandatory disqualifications.