Doctrine of parity in appointments cannot be claimed after notification of new recruitment rules containing specific savings clauses.

The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 28 of a 2011 waiting list for Class-IV (Peon) appointments in the Jehanabad Collectorate.

He approached the High Court previously in CWJC No. 6015 of 2024, which directed the authorities to consider his representation.

The District Magistrate rejected his claim via a speaking order dated 24.06.2025, stating that no vacancies existed in the OBC category and that new rules dictated appointments through the Bihar Staff Selection Commission.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, alleging that candidates lower than him in the 2011 list (Sl. Nos. 31, 33, and 34) were appointed in 2023 and 2024, thus violating the doctrine of parity and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on the ground of parity with candidates lower in the merit list who were appointed after judicial interventions.

2. Whether the "Bihar Karyalaya Parichari/Parichari (Vishisht) (Bharti ebom Seva Shart) Niyamavali, 2023" bars the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the old 2011 waiting list.

The court applied the Bihar Karyalaya Parichari/Parichari (Vishisht) (Bharti ebom Seva Shart) Niyamavali, 2023, specifically Rule 13 (Repeal and Savings). Rule 13(i) stipulates that while earlier recruitment rules are repealed, appointments initiated under earlier rules may only be executed if they are in compliance with a judicial order that remained unexecuted at the time the 2023 Rules were notified (22.09.2023).

The court also referenced the precedent set in Kapil Kumar Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar Ors. (CWJC No. 18612 of 2019), which led to the framing of the 2023 Rules.

The court examined the timeline of the judicial orders cited by the petitioner to claim parity. It found that the candidates at Sl. Nos. 31, 33, and 34 had secured judicial orders in their favor in 2012 (CWJC No. 2092 of 2012) and subsequently filed contempt petitions (MJC No. 1389 of 2019 and MJC No. 2399 of 2022).

Crucially, the judicial decisions in those cases were rendered prior to the notification of the 2023 Rules on 22.09.2023. In contrast, the petitioner did not obtain any judicial order regarding his appointment before the cutoff date of 22.09.2023.

Therefore, the savings clause under Rule 13 protected the appointments of those lower-ranked candidates because their "process of appointment" was initiated via judicial orders prior to the repeal. Since the petitioner approached the court later, his claim is governed by the new 2023 Rules, and he cannot benefit from the doctrine of parity with individuals whose rights were crystallized under the previous legal regime via timely litigation.

The final holding is that the impugned order of the District Magistrate is legal and requires no interference. The court dismissed the writ petition, denying the request for a mandamus to appoint the petitioner to a Class-IV post.