The National Law Institute University,

Bhopal
Case Analysis of
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors.
(19. 05. 2010 - SC) MANU/SC/1265/2010

submitted by
Shriyadita Srivastava
Roll Number: 2020BALLB 100
Enrolment Number: A2273

Semester I
B. A. LL. B. (Hons.)

submitted to
Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare
Law of torts

Date of submission: 31/1/2020

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I extend my sincere gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare for providing me an opportunity to
work on this case analysis of “Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors.
(19.05.2010 - SC) MANU/SC/1265/2010”. I express my thankfulness to him for taking a
keen interest in the project and providing constant encouragement along with constructive
criticism at every stage of the same.

I am thankful to Prof (Dr) Ghayur Alam for his guidance on the nuances of project making. I
am also thankful to my family for their relentless support in every way possible.

DECLARATION

I, Shriyadita Srivastava, D/O Maj Gen Sharad Kumar Srivastava Roll Number
2020BALLB 100 Enrolment Number A-2273 do hereby declare that the Project titled “Case
Analysis of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. (19.05.2010 - SC)
MANU/SC/1265/2010” is an outcome of my own independent research endeavour and has
been carried out under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare. Literature relied on by me
for the purpose of this Project has been fully and completely acknowledged in the footnotes
and bibliography. The Project is not plagiarized and all reasonable steps have been taken to
avoid plagiarism. Similarity Index as per the Turnitin Report is____%. In case, my project is
found to be plagiarized, the course teacher shall have the full liberty to ask me to revise the
Project. If I fail to comply with the instructions of the teacher, my project may be referred to
the Committee Against Use of Unfair Means and I will comply with the decision of the said
Committee.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Name of the Case and Citation ……………………..………. 4
 Size of the Bench …………………………………………… 4
 Name of the Judges ……………………………………….... 4
 Author of the Judgement……………………………………. 4
 Nature of the Judgement …………………………................ 4
 Advocates on behalf of the Appellant ……………................ 4
 Advocates on behalf of the Respondent ……………………. 4
 Amicus and Interveners……………………………………... 5
 Background to the Case…………………………………....... 5
 Material Facts of the Case……………………………...……
 Questions Raised before the Court …………………………. 6
 Contentions Advanced by the Appellant……….................... 6
 Contentions Advanced by the Respondent………………….. 7
 Provisions of the Constitution Applied in the Case ............... 7
 Doctrines/ Theories Invoked in the Judgement …………….. 8
 Books, Articles and Other Literature Cited in the Judgement 8
 Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Orders Related 9
to the Case ………………………………………………….
 Precedents Relied upon by the Court ………………..…….. 10
 Judgement in Parsonam and Judgement in Rem………...…. 13
 Conclusion ………………………………………………...... 14
 Bibliography ………………………………………………... 15

NAME OF THE CASE

Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors.

3
FULL CITATION
MANU/SC/1265/2010
Equivalent Citations:
(2010) 12SCC576
2010(6)SCALE166

SIZE OF THE BENCH

Division Bench
NAME OF THE JUDGES
G.S. Singhvi, C.K. Prasad, JJ.

AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J

NATURE OF THE JUDGEMENT

Unanimous

ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Jayant Bhushan, Sr Adv.
 T.V. George, Adv.
 Lokesh Kumar Gunjan, Adv.

ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. (For Patna High Court for Parekh and Company)
 Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar & Chandan Kumar, Advs (For State of Bihar)
 Anupama Sharma, Vishnu Sharma, Advs. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
 Jitendra Singh, Adv. (For Rameshwar Prasad Goyal)
 Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv, Pratham Kant, Sushant Kumar, Advs. and Naresh
Bakshi, A.O.R. for Respondent No. 7

AMICUS AND INTERVENERS

4
Not Applicable

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

This petition was filed by the appellant against the order given by a Division Bench of the
Patna High Court in CWJC 8054 of 2008. It is to challenge the earmarking of Two Hundred
(200) marks for interview, i.e., viva voce exam, against 850 marks for written exam in Bihar
Civil Services (Judicial Branch) recruitment process. The challenge was negated by the lower
court.

The petitioner, Manish Kumar Shahi, a Bihar Public Services Commission aspirant had
applied for selection as a Civil Judge in response to an advertisement dated 18.11.2005. He
qualified for the second stage after passing in the written examination. However, he was
unable to achieve a merit rank in the list of 318 qualified candidates released by BPSC after
the second stage, i.e., the viva voce exam.

As a result, after 9 months of the declaration of result, he filed a writ petition questioning the
constitutional validity of Appendix- C of the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch)
(Recruitment) Rules, 1955 on the grounds that such a division of marks prescribed by the
same was excessive and contrary to what had been laid by multiple judgements of The Court
in the past.

The division bench of the High Court agreed to the contention raised on behalf of the State
Government that the candidate having participated in the selection process is estopped from
questioning the division of marks. The court also accepted the pleading of the State that the
318 qualified candidates had already been appointed. Therefore, the petition was dismissed
by the High Court. The matter was then brought to the Supreme Court in the form of this
appeal, under Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 26223/2008.

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner had appeared in the selection procedure of Bihar Civil Service (Judicial
Branch) and was appealing against the same after he failed to succeed.
2. The candidate was well aware of the earmarking of 19% marks to viva voce exam
before he had applied as it the rules had clearly been published along with the
advertisement for the examination.
3. The qualified 318 candidates had already been appointed.

5
QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
 Did the petitioner have locus standi to question the validity of the Bihar Civil Services
(Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, that prescribed the division of marks after
having undergone the same process that he was challenging now?
 Was the division of marks, as prescribed by the Rules mentioned above excessive and
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and contrary to what had been
upheld by the Court through its judgements in the past?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

In the original writ petition filed by the appellant in Patna High Court through CWJC No.
8054 of 200, the following reliefs were prayed for:

1. To issue a writ, quashing the result of the Bihar Judicial Services Examination 2005,
held for the post of Munsif and directing the respondents to hold fresh examination
after reducing the percentage of marks currently earmarked for viva voce exam.
Alternatively, if this was not possible, then the issuance of a writ directing the
respondent to appoint the plaintiff a vacant seat that may arise.

2. Issuance of an appropriate writ to declare the allotment of 200 marks for the
interview/ viva voce (19.05% of the total) as ultra vires the Constitution of India and
destructive of Article 14.

When the petition in the High Court was denied and a leave petition was filed in the
Supreme Court, the counsel of the petitioner also argued that,

3. In denying relief to the petitioner by invoking the principle of Estoppel, the High
Court had committed an error as the petitioner was challenging the constitutional
validity of the Rules for being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They
contended that the rule of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence could not be applied to
the cases involving violation of fundamental rights under part III of contrition. It was
put forth that the denial by High Court was also violative of the law laid by the
Supreme Court in Ashoka Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana.

6
CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
Through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state government, the following was
contented

1. The petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the validity of the Rules of selection
procedure due to the rule of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. He was moving to the
court against the provisions which he had earlier accepted and taken a chance with but
wants to appeal only now that he failed to achieve the desired success.

2. The 318 candidates qualified and recommended by the BPSC after the 26 th Judicial
Competitive Exam, 2008 have already been appointed and any vacant seats, arising
due to non-joining by any candidate must be carried forward to the next year.

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION USED/APPLIED IN THE

CASE
1. Article 14 of the Constitution of India
“Equality before law —The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”
2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India
“Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment”

The appellants contended that the earmarking of a substantially higher percentage of marks
for interview/ viva voce and further, denial to the appellant to petition against the same was
violation of the mentioned provisions of the Constitution.

7
DOCTRINES, THEORIES, PRINCIPLES AND CONCPTS INVOKED IN
THE JUDGEMENT

1. Doctrine of Estoppel1
The doctrine of estoppel has been dealt with in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and has
also been developed by courts over the years. There are many different types of
estoppels, the main aim of which is to avert the commitment of fraud by one party
against the other by holding them accountable for false representations, through
conduct or words. Of the many types, the category of estoppels relevant to this
judgement are as follows

 Equitable Estoppel – This principle can be invoked to prohibit legal action by

a party when the same is in conflict a previously given statement, claim or act
by him/her. For example, A gives clothes to B for alteration. While returning
the clothes to A after the alterations, B informs him that during the alterations,
a tiny stain appeared in the back but was not visible from the outside. A
readily accepted the clothes at that moment, without raising any objections.
Later, if A tries to bring a claim against B, he would be estopped as the claims
would be counter to his earlier statement of forgiveness.

 Estoppel by Acquiescence – When one party, by a legitimate notice, informs

another about the facts of a claim but the second party neither acknowledges
nor challenges nor refutes the same within a reasonable time, they acquiesce
of the claims, even with reluctance would estop the party from brining action
in the future.

BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND OTHER LITERATURE CITED IN THE

JUDGEMENT
Not Applicable

1
Anjali Dhingra, ‘Doctrine of Estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872’ (Blog.ipleaders ,1 August 2019)
<https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-estoppel-in-the-indian-evidence-act/> Accessed 1 August 2019

8
STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS, NOTIFICATIONS OR ORDERS
RELATED TO THE CASE
1. Rule 14, Appendix ‘C’, Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules,
1955
The whole case revolves around the division of marks prescribed by the above-
mentioned Rule, which was as given below.

Subjects Marks
1. Compulsory -

(1) General Knowledge (including 150

current affairs)
(2) Elementary General Science 100
(3) General Hindi 100
This compulsory paper will be a qualifying subject in whish all
candidates shall be required to secure a minimum of 30 marks
but the marks secured in this paper will not be added for the
purpose of determination of 7 merit.
2. Optional-Candidates must appear in subject No. 4 and select
any three out of the remaining five subjects-
(4) Law of Evidence and Procedure 150
(5) Constitutional Law of India and 150
England
(6) Hindu Law and Muhammandan Law 150
(7) Law of Transfer of Property and 150 150
Equity including Law of Trusts and
Specific Relief
(8) Law of Contracts and Torts 150
(9) Commercial Law 150
3. Viva Voce test 200

The same was clearly mentioned along with the advertisement pursuant to which the
candidate had applied and appeared for the examination and selection procedure.

9
PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE COURT

1. Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan2

The Court held that while written tests are necessary to assess intellectual prowess
and knowledge, interviews are valuable to judge the personal qualities of an
individual, including initiative, cooperativeness, effectiveness in a discussion, moral
integrity, etc. “Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the
interview test the man himself and the twain shall meet for a proper selection.” In
regard to the weightage to be given to written and oral examination respectively, it
was held that there is no thumb rule to decide the same, it would vary from condition
to condition, dependent upon the nature of service in question, minimum prescribed
qualification of the candidates, age bracket of the candidates, etc. The decision should
be made after requisite research by experts and the courts may interfere only if the
weightage is exaggerated or proven to have “obvious oblique motive.”

2. Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir3

The facts of this case are very similar to the case under consideration in this project.
Here, the appellant applied for selection as a Munsif, pursuant to an advertisement
published by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Services Commission. The selection
process consisted of a written exam, followed by an interview/ viva voce. The
petitioner challenged the selection of the successful candidates after the viva voce,
based on a multiple set of contentions. The factors relevant as a precedent to this case
analysis are that the prayers by the petitioner to quash the results based on viva voce
as “invalid, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice” and to declare fresh
results based only written examination or reconduct viva voce after revising its
defects were rejected by the Court. It was held that when a candidate appears in an
examination without any protests initially but later raises contentions after he fails to
succeed, the court should not grant relief in such a case. The court also said that it
would be unfair for a court to judge the validity of decisions of an expert committee,
such as the concerned interview panel and this is the task of an appellate body.

3. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana4

2
(1981) 4 SCC 159
3
(1995) 3 SCC 486
4
(1985) 4 SCC 417

10
 In keeping with the Lila Dhar judgement, the court held that there is no hard and fast
rule to decide the weightage that can be given to viva voce against the written
examination. This is the decision for an expert body to make, after taking the multiple
relevant factors into consideration and the court should interfere only if reasonable
grounds for bias and unreasonableness are found. In this case, the allotment of
33.33% and 22.22% weightage to interview for ex-service officers and other
candidates, respectively was in fact found to be excessive and arbitrary. The Court
observed that the distribution of marks prescribed by UPSC for IAS and allied
services, i.e.12.2% of the total marks for viva voce is fair, just and balanced. It
directed the Haryana Public Services Commission to abide by the same, the
weightage to viva voce for any of its future examinations involving a viva voce
should not exceed 12.2%. The court suggested, that for benefit of uniformity and
fairness, all State Public Service Commissions should take the UPSC practices as a
guideline. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that it would be unfair to set aside the results
of the current examination where the successful candidates had already qualified.
Hence, as a form of compensation, all the candidates who had secured the prescribed
minimum 45% in written exam and qualified for interview were given a chance to
reappear in the examination next year.

4. Mehmood Alam Tariq and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Ors.5

The question was to decide if it is arbitrary that the candidate has to a score a
minimum 33% marks in interview for final qualification, i.e., if prescription of
separate passing marks for interview and written examination is fair. The court held
that this was not unreasonable to expect that future officers of such services who
would bear responsibilities of a high order should have the basic set of personal traits
evaluated in an interview, apart from academic excellence evaluated in the written
examination.

5
(1988) 3 SCC 241

11
 The following cases reiterated the judgements of the above-mentioned cases and were
further relied upon in the Manish Kumar Judgement

5. State of UP v. Rafiquddin and Ors.6

Among other matters, the court reiterated that it was not unreasonable to expect
candidates to achieve the minimum passing marks in the viva voce exam, separate
from the written exam. Even if there was any matter of contention which deserved to
be addressed by the court, it was unreasonable to do so now, because of the inordinate
delay of 10 years on the part of the petitioner to file a petition. Thus, the prayer to set
aside the selection made by UP Civil Service Commission (Judicial Branch) was
nullified.

6. Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors.7

The earmarking of 50% for interview and 50% marks for academic qualification by
the interview panel for final selection as an Unani doctor was held to be arbitrary and
prejudiced, vitiating the whole selection procedure.

JUDGEMENT IN PERSONEM AND JUDGEMENT IN REM

6
MANU/SC/0709/1987
7
(1994) 1 SCC 150

12
On the question of locus standi of the petitioner, the court ruled that the candidate had applied
and taken part in the selection procedure after being well aware of the terms and conditions,
including earmarking of 19% marks for viva voce. He decided to raise contentions only after
he failed to secure a merit rank in the examination. Had he succeeded in the examinations,
there was no way he would’ve questioned the selection procedure. Thus, the Court agreed
with the High Court in saying that this position disentitled from making any claims. The
Court also acknowledged the decision of the lower court on the matter that, if at all, there was
scope of any remedy for the petitioner, it would not be in the form of allotment of a vacant
seat to him as it had been made clear by the 1997 circular of the Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department that any vacant seats that may arise will be carried
forward to the next year.

On the question of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution by the
earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce out of 1050 total marks, the court agreed with the law
created by past judgements that

i) Oral examination as well as written examinations, both hold importance in fully

assessing the abilities of a candidate. The question of weightage that is allotted to
them should be decided based on research by experts and keeping in mind
multiple factors, e.g., in the selection procedure for college admission, it would be
unfair to allot a very high proportion of marks to interview since people at this age
are still undergoing growth and development while for relatively older candidates,
who exhibit great promise for the future, an interview would be helpful in
discerning the same.
ii) There is nothing arbitrary and unreasonable in expecting that the candidates who
are selected through these interviews, to become officers in the future are
endowed with the appropriate personality traits that are assessed and evaluated in
an interview, apart from a written examination.

In view of all these factors, the special leave petition was dismissed.

The judgment reaffirmed the decisions of the following cases

 Madan Lal v. State of J. and K.8

 Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.9
8
(1995) 3 SCC 486
9
(2007) 11 SCC 522

13
  Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.10
 Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam11
 K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors12
 State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors.13
 Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.14
 Mehmood Alam Tariq and others v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.15

CONCLUSION
The judgement has reiterated and consolidated the view of the judiciary on this matter over
the years. It takes a fair stance in pronouncing that a candidate who appears in the selection
procedure without raising any contentions initially, but challenges the same when he fails
after the entire procedure has been completed should be non-suited from moving to the court.
If one was aware of and agreed with the rules and regulations of the exam in the first place
but later, out of vengeance of failure, wants to bring action against the same, they should be
disentitled from doing so.

The stance of the court that earmarking of a limited weightage to interview /viva voce is not
arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the doctrine of inequality under Article 14 and 16 of the
constitution is also just. It is not unreasonable to expect candidates applying for such a post,
with heavy burden of responsibilities to have a certain set of personal traits, which can be
identified in an interview. Interviews, along with minimum academic qualification and
written exam, in the correct balance are useful in discerning the worthiness and potential of
candidates. As for the decision of this exact proportion, the court makes an insightful
observation by saying that those who decide the same usually are/ should be experts in the
field who are aware of the needs and expectations from the potential candidates of the
respective field, hence there is little scope of arbitrariness. Nevertheless, in case the
distribution is found to be excessive and arbitrary, stemming from oblique motive, the Court
is always there to step in to restore justice, equity and fairness.

10
(2008) 4 SCC 171
11
(2009) 3 SCC 227
12
(2009) 5 SCC 515
13
MANU/SC/0709/1987
14
(1981) 4 SCC 159
15
MANU/SC/0278/1988

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases
1. Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227
2. Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 150

3. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417

4. Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC
171
5. K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors, (2009) 5 SCC 515Manish
Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/1265/20101
6. Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159
7. Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486
8. Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2007)
11 SCC 522
9. Mehmood Alam Tariq and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Ors (1988) 3
SCC 241
10.State of UP v. Rafiquddin and Ors MANU/SC/0709/1987

Online Sources
1. Dhingra A, ‘Doctrine of Estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872’
(Blog.ipleaders ,1 August 2019) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-
estoppel-in-the-indian-evidence-act/>
2. Anushka, ‘Doctrine of Estoppel’ (lawtimesofjournal, 1 April 2019)
<http://lawtimesjournal.in/doctrine-of-estoppel/>

15