Judicial Appointment Parity Cannot Be Claimed Under Article 14 Based on Orders Passed Under Article 142.

In 2004, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) issued Advertisement No. 704 for 1510 Sub-Inspector posts

Following various litigations regarding model answers and vacancies, 2149 candidates were appointed

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the medical examination and appointment of a specific group of 133 candidates in Chandra Gupta Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar

The writ petitioners (respondents herein), claiming they had higher marks than those 133 candidates, sought parity and appointment

Their initial writ petitions and appeals were dismissed, but the Supreme Court later allowed them to submit representations to the State

The State rejected these representations

A learned Single Judge subsequently allowed their writ petitions in 2025, directing their appointment on grounds of equity

The State/BSSC challenged this through the present batch of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs).

1. Whether the writ petitioners are entitled to seek appointment based on parity with 133 candidates appointed under the special directions of the Supreme Court

2. Whether the selection process for the 2004 advertisement remains open due to isolated appointments made in 2023-2024 to satisfy court orders

3. Whether the rejection of representations by the State gave rise to a fresh cause of action for further litigation in light of prior Supreme Court restrictions

Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders for doing "complete justice," noting that such orders are often "fact-specific" and not intended as precedents

Principle of Article 14 (Right to Equality), clarifying that it does not encompass "negative equality"—the right to benefit from an illegal or extraordinary order given to another

Supreme Court's directions in Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2020) 17 SCC 294] and Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. Amir Subhani & Ors. [2018 SCC OnLine SC 3576], which explicitly prohibited further litigation/appeals regarding the 2004 selection process after the rejection of representations

The Court reasoned that the 133 candidates formed a specific category created by the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to end decades of litigation, with an express caveat that the order was not a precedent

The High Court found that the writ petitioners could not claim parity under Article 14 because equality is a positive concept; if a selection process has closed, no right exists to reopen it based on an Article 142 exception granted to others

The Court observed that the writ petitioners failed to prove they had higher marks than any regularly appointed candidates, basing their entire claim solely on the 133 "Article 142 beneficiaries"

The Court rejected the "continuous selection" argument regarding Dinesh Kumar and Mala, clarifying their 2023-24 appointments were strictly due to specific pending court directions and did not extend the life of the 2004 recruitment cycle

The Court ruled that the selection process for the 2004 advertisement reached finality years ago and further litigation is barred by the mandate of the Supreme Court in the Arvind Kumar case

All Letters Patent Appeals were allowed, the writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded