Districts Must Reconsider Appointments of Similarly Situated Candidates Following Reversal of Mass Selection Cancellation

The petitioners were appointed as Grade-IV Ward Attendants in Gaya, Bihar, following Advertisement No. 1/2013-14

Their appointments were subsequently cancelled via Memo No. 1460 (dated 24.12.2019) and subsequent memos in January 2020

These cancellations were based on a previous High Court order in CWJC No. 18612 of 2019

While a challenge to these cancellations was initially dismissed by a Single Judge, the Division Bench in LPA No. 121 of 2020 (Sunita Kumari v. State of Bihar) set aside the cancellation order dated 24.12.2019

The Division Bench directed the authorities to afford affected candidates an opportunity of being heard and to reinstate them if their appointments were found to be in order

Following this, 72 similarly situated candidates were reinstated, but the petitioners’ claims remained pending despite their submission of show-cause replies

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity with the 72 reinstated candidates pursuant to the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 121 of 2020

2. Whether the pendency of CWJC No. 2310 of 2023 (challenging the reinstatement of the 72 candidates) acts as a bar to the consideration of the petitioners' claims for reinstatement

The Court applied the principles of parity and administrative fairness as established by the Division Bench in Sunita Kumari and others v. State of Bihar (LPA No. 121 of 2020), which mandated that the State provide an opportunity for hearing and verification of credentials before cancelling appointments

The Court also acknowledged the procedural directions issued in Ravindra Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2310 of 2023), which empowered the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, to oversee the genuineness of Grade-IV appointments in the district

The Court noted that the petitioners had already submitted detailed replies and documents following the Division Bench’s directions in LPA No. 121 of 2020

The State’s primary contention was that the matter should be deferred until the final adjudication of CWJC No. 2310 of 2023

The Court reasoned that there was no justification to keep the present writ petition pending, as the mechanism for verifying such claims had already been established via the Divisional Commissioner

The Court found that the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner have the authority to determine if the petitioners’ selection was "in order" as per the earlier judicial mandate

Any previous cancellation memos (Annexures 11–14) were directed not to obstruct this fresh consideration

The authorities are directed to take a final decision on the petitioners' reinstatement in light of LPA No. 121 of 2020 within three months

The previous orders of cancellation shall not impede this process