Pleadings at variance with oral arguments cannot be sustained to challenge a selection process.

The appellant, Ram Krishna Yadav, filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 6687 of 2019) challenging the selection process conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).

The appellant contended in his pleadings that he was incorrectly awarded 5 points for his Ph.D. with NET instead of 10, and 6 marks in the interview instead of a potential 10.

During arguments before the Single Judge, the appellant’s counsel shifted the stance, arguing that 6 candidates with higher marks were not adjusted against general category seats, thereby depriving the appellant of a seat in the reserved category.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on December 2, 2023, on the grounds that the petitioner failed to qualify in the selection process.

The appellant subsequently filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the petitioner's disqualification warrant interference in the appeal.

2. Whether an appellant can seek relief based on arguments that are at complete variance with the original pleadings in the writ petition.

A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot maintain an argument that exists at "complete variance" with the facts stated in the petition.

If a candidate fails to qualify on merit, the court will not reassess the subjective marks awarded by an Interview Board or selection body absent specific grounds.

The Division Bench observed that there was a significant discrepancy between the appellant's written pleadings and the oral arguments made before the Writ Court.

While the petition focused on the specific marks allotted for educational qualifications and the interview, the oral argument introduced a new claim regarding the misapplication of the reservation policy and the adjustment of general category seats.

Since the specific argument regarding the reservation policy adjustment was not part of the original pleadings in the writ petition, the Bench determined there was no legal basis to overturn the Single Judge’s decision.

The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, affirming the order dated December 2, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge.

No order as to costs was made.