Challenge to recruitment eligibility criteria rendered infructuous by subsequent amendment of service rules.

The Petitioner, a medical professional, challenged Note (4) to entry (3) of Annexure-B of the Senior Resident/Tutor and Bihar Medical Education Service Cadre Recruitment, Appointment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (as amended by the 2013 Rules)

This specific provision stipulated that candidates who failed medical examinations on more than three occasions were ineligible for appointment as Assistant Professors

Consequently, the Petitioner sought to quash Note (iii) of Clause 5 of BPSC Advertisement No. 17/2025, which implemented this restriction, and prayed for a mandamus to allow him to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in the Pharmacology Department

During the pendency of the writ, the State government notified the Senior Resident/Tutor and Bihar Medical Education Service Recruitment, Appointment and Promotion (Amendment) Rules, 2026

1. Whether the rule limiting eligibility for Assistant Professor posts based on the number of failed attempts in examinations was ultra vires Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and the doctrine of proportionality

2. Whether the challenge survived following the notification of the 2026 Amendment Rules

The court focused on the principle of infructuousness resulting from the supersession of impugned regulations by subsequent legislation.

Senior Resident/Tutor and Bihar Medical Education Service Recruitment, Appointment and Promotion (Amendment) Rules, 2026, which were brought into effect via notification dated 09.02.2026 by the Health Department, Government of Bihar

The court did not adjudicate upon the Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the "three-attempt" restriction. Instead, it relied upon the submission of the Learned Advocate General, who produced the 09.02.2026 notification

This notification introduced new recruitment and promotion rules (the 2026 Amendment Rules) which altered the legal framework existing at the time the petition was filed. The court observed that because the recruitment landscape had been modified by these new rules, the specific grievances raised against the 2008/2013 Rules and the 2025 advertisement no longer required judicial determination

The Court did not grant the specific reliefs prayed for but disposed of the petition on the ground that the intervening legislative change rendered the dispute redundant