A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case addresses the interpretation and application of the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The key dispute concerns whether minimum qualifying marks should be calculated solely on the written test (70 marks) or on the total score (100 marks) including experience. The appellants denied respondent no. 1 a position, arguing she did not meet the minimum qualifying percentage when experience marks were factored in. The High Court held, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the qualifying marks pertained only to the written test, rendering respondent no. 1 eligible. The judgment emphasized rule adherence, the distinction between statutory rules and executive orders, and a harmonious interpretation of the applicable provisions.

Keywords: Bihar City Manager Rules, Minimum Qualifying Marks, Written Examination, Executive Order, Recruitment Rules.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Himal Kumari & Anr. Etc.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 7815-7816 of 2024
• iii) Judgement Date: 16 July 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Vikram Nath and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.
• vi) Author: Vikram Nath, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 970; 2024 INSC 531
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Rule 5 and Rule 11 of Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014; Article 309 of the Constitution of India
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None
• x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects: Administrative Law, Service Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This case originated from recruitment to the post of City Manager under the Bihar Urban Development and Housing Department. Governed by the Bihar City Manager Rules, 2014, the selection process required candidates to clear a written test and earn marks for experience. Respondent no. 1 challenged her exclusion on the grounds that she met the minimum marks for the written test despite having no experience. The High Court’s decision in her favor led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An advertisement dated 15 November 2016 invited applications for 152 City Manager posts.
2. The selection process allocated 70 marks for a written test and up to 30 marks for experience. The minimum qualifying marks for women were set at 32%.
3. Respondent no. 1 secured 22.5 marks out of 70 in the written test, amounting to 32.14%. She lacked prior experience and hence received no marks in that category.
4. The appellants excluded her, interpreting the qualifying percentage as applicable to the total score.
5. Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the minimum qualifying marks of 32% applied only to the written test or the total score.
ii. Whether the exclusion of respondent no. 1 violated the recruitment rules.
iii. The relevance of an executive order from 2007 in the context of the 2014 Rules.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The appellants argued the qualifying percentage applied to the total score of 100, combining written test and experience marks.
ii. They relied on an executive order dated 16 July 2007, which set uniform qualifying marks for various competitive exams.
iii. They contended the respondent was ineligible as she failed to meet the threshold in the overall assessment.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. Respondent no. 1 asserted that the qualifying percentage explicitly pertained only to the written test.
ii. She emphasized the textual clarity of the advertisement, which aligned with the 2014 Rules.
iii. She argued that applying the 2007 executive order contradicted the 2014 Rules and led to her unjust exclusion.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Rule 5 of Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014 – Defined the recruitment process and weightage for marks.
ii. Rule 11 of Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014 – Addressed residual matters not covered in the rules.
iii. Article 309 of the Constitution of India – Governed the framing of service rules for public posts.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
i. The Supreme Court held that the minimum qualifying marks applied only to the written test.
ii. It emphasized a harmonious interpretation of Rule 5 and the advertisement, focusing on textual clarity.
iii. It reiterated the primacy of statutory rules over earlier executive orders.

b. Obiter Dicta
i. The Court observed that rules and advertisements must be constructed to avoid ambiguity.
ii. It clarified that experience marks were relevant for merit ranking but not for determining eligibility.

c. Guidelines
i. Statutory rules must take precedence over executive orders in case of conflict.
ii. Clear and unambiguous language in advertisements is crucial for fair recruitment practices.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. [2022] 1 SCR 373; (2022) 11 SCC 392.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014.
ii. Constitution of India, Article 309.