Sri Kant Sharma vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17952 of 2025
======================================================
Sri Kant Sharma Son of Ram Bachan Sharma, Resident of Village -
Jagapakar, P.S. Harsidhi, District - East Chamaparan, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. Bihar Public Service Commission, through the Chairman, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, Bihar.
6. The Examination Controller, BPSC, Patna, Bihar.
7. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
8. The District Program Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
9. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
10. The Principal, P.S.S.N.Girls High School, Areraj, East Champaran.
11. The Executive Officer - cum Member Secretary, Areraj Nagar Panchyat,
East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, Adv.
For the BPSC : Ms. Usha Kumari No.01, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026
Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, learned Advocate
for the State.
2. The petitioner, one of the aspirants for the post of
Head Master in the Senior Secondary School in connection with
Advertisement No. 26 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 has approached
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
2/9
this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue
appointment letter by virtue of securing 387th position in the
Merit List issued by the respondent Bihar Publisc Service
Commission. The petitioner also sought for quashing of the
Letter dated 18.03.2025 to the extent whereby the experience
certificate as per the advertisement uploaded by the petitioner
has been marked as doubtful for not being signed by the District
Programme Officer.
3. The short facts, which led to the filing of the
present writ petition are that the petitioner on being found
eligible, applied for the post of Head Master in the Senior
Secondary School through online application alongwith all the
requisite papers and fees. Out of total 6061 posts of "Head
Master", 1590 posts were reserved for EBC category including
518 posts for EBC women. The petitioners appeared on the
selection test duly conducted by the BPSC and was placed at
387th position under unreserved category. It is stated that
alongwith application form, the petitioner also enclosed all the
relevant certificates and documents, including the experience
certificates, duly issued by the In-charge Head Master of the
PSSN School, Arya Raj. On being satisfied with the documents
submitted by the petitioner, he was called upon to participate in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
3/9
the counseling held on 20.12.2024, 11.02.2025 and 18.03.2025.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
in the first counseling dated 12.12.2024, the experience
certificate was found correct, while education qualification of
M.Sc and B.ed was found doubtful. In the second counseling
held on 11.02.2025, though the petitioner appeared, but no
counseling letter was issued, as none of the petitioner's
documents were perused or verified. Finally the petitioner
appeared in the third and final counseling held on 18.03.2025,
wherein all his documents were found to be correct, but with
respect to experience certificate the same was found to be
doubtful stating therein that the "experience certificate
uploaded, but DPO signature not found".
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the
application along with the experience certificate, which were
uploaded in pursuant to the advertisement, submitted that
surprisingly the experience certificate which was found correct
in first counseling dated 20.12.2024, but when the petitioner
produced the experience certificate dated 13.12.2024 bearing
the signature of concerned District Program Officer at the time
of third counseling, the same was said to be doubtful. The
advertisement, the copy of which is placed on record, especially
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
4/9
Clause 3(v), thereof clearly stipulates that at the time of
submission of the application, the experience certificate was
only required to be issued by the Principal of the college and
there was no such stipulation that it must contain the signature
of the District Programme Officer. The clarificatory note made
in the advertisement precisely states that after selection at the
time of appointment only those experience certificate would be
valid, which is duly counter signed by District Programme
Officer. The petitioner had accordingly produced the experience
certificate duly counter signed by the District Programme
Officer on the date of counseling held on 20.12.2024 itself,
which was found to be correct, as is evident from Annexure-
P/10.
6. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, he thus submitted
that there was no error on the part of the petitioner, which may
resulted into non acceptance of his candidature for the purposes
of appointment. Had there been any doubt with regard to the
genuineness of the certificate, the same may be verified by the
District Program Officer or the Principal of the concerned
school, but the same has not been done. Only on account of the
unfounded doubt, the claim of the petitioner for appointment has
been negated.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
5/9
7. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan
Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., (2024) 11 SCC 785
wherein the Apex Court underscored that if the error in the
application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection
process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of
this molehill. The petitioner should not be penalised for this
insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate
result.
8. It is lastly argued that the petitioner though belongs
to EBC category, but secured his good position in the merit list
of general category by virtue of his merit and thus it should not
be penalized for his no fault.
9. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
refuting the contention of the petitioner submitted that bare
perusal of the advertisement especially Clause 6 (VIII) thereof,
it is apparent that all the required certificates, including the
experience certificate, should be mandatorily issued prior to
02.04.2024. It has been further clarified that the certificate
issued after the lapse of the last date of filing of the application
form would not be recognized. The date of the last date of the
submission of the online form was 02.04.2024, which indicate
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
6/9
that the certificate must be issued prior to 02.04.2024.
10. Learned Advocate for the State further contended
that during the process of counseling, the petitioner produced
the Experience Certificate No. 119 dated 13.12.2024, which has
been issued under the joint signature of the concerned Head
Master/In-Charge Head Master of the school, the DPO
(Establishment), the DPO (Secondary Education & Literacy) &
DEO, East Champaran, Motihari; wherein it is certified that the
petitioner has been working as a teacher from 28.05.2013 , till
date and the date of passing of the B.Ed. Examination has been
mentioned as August, 2011. Since certain discrepancies have
been found in the experience certificate, besides it has been
issued after 02.04.2024, the same has not been found
acceptable, which resulted into non issuance of the appointment
letter.
11. Having considered the submission advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and upon perusal
of the stipulations of the Advertisement No. 26 of 2026
especially Clause 3 (V) thereof, wherein the clarificatory note
has been given, it is imperative that only those experience
certificates shall be eligible, which has been issued by the
Principal/In-Charge Principal. However, after selection of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
7/9
candidate, the experience certificate must be counter signed by
the District Program Officer.
12. Bare plain reading of the aforesaid prescription, it
is evident that at the time of uploading of the application form,
there was no requirement of the experience certificate being
counter signed by the District Program Officer and from perusal
of the experience certificate, which was uploaded at the time of
submission of the application, it clearly appears that the same
has been issued by the Principal of the School on 28.03.2024
and as per the contention of the petitioner in the first counseling
held on 20.12.2024, the petitioner has produced the experience
certificate duly counter signed by the District Program Officer,
which was found correct.
13. Hence, in any view of the matter the objection
raised by the respondents that his certificate has been issued
after the cut off date of 02.04.2024 has no merit for
consideration. This Court also finds that only on account of a
doubt raised in the experience certificate produced by the
petitioner, he cannot be deprived from appointment, if he has
successfully passed and secured good merit position.
Undoubtedly had there been any doubt, the same would have
been clarified by the concerned authority including the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
8/9
Program Officer or the Principal of the School or in case, the
petitioner may be called upon or be given opportunity to satisfy
the recruiting agency.
14. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra)
also finds applicable in the case of the petitioner wherein, the
Court has categorically observed as follows:-
"15. .........9. It is true that
whenever any material discrepancy is
noticed in the application form and/or
when any suppression and/or mis-
representation is detected, the
candidature might be cancelled even after
the application has been processed and
the candidate has been allowed to
participate in the selection process.
However, after a candidate has
participated in the selection process and
cleared all the stages successfully, his
candidature can only be cancelled, after
careful scrutiny of the gravity of the
lapse, and not for trivial omissions or
errors.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and the position
obtaining in law, as referred hereinabove, this Court finds
substance in the present writ petition. Accordingly, direct the
respondent no. 03, the Director, Secondary Education,
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17952 of 2025 dt.21-07-2026
9/9
Head Master in Senior Secondary School in connection with
Advertisement No. 26 of 2024 and take appropriate decision,
after getting proper verification of the experience certificate.
16. Suffice it to observe that if the experience
certificate produced by the petitioner is found to be genuine, in
such circumstances the necessary order of appointment be
issued in his favour, considering the fact that still the posts are
vacant and available, as has been stated in the writ petition.
17. The entire exercise must be completed, preferably
within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt/production
of a copy of this order.
18. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.07.2026
Transmission Date NA