Sangeeta Kumari v. Bihar Technical Service Commission,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8650 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.
Sangeeta Kumari D/o Nirmal Kumar, R/o Uffrail Chowk, NH 31, By Pass, Purnia, Bihar-854301.
2.
Abhishek Kumar S/o Narayan Roy, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Madhubani, P.S. Khajanchihat, Purnia, Bihar-854301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
Bihar Technical Service Commission, through its Chairman, 19, Harding Road, Rajbansi Nagar, Patna Bihar-800001.
2.
The State of Bihar Through its Additional Chief Secretary, G.A.D Main Secretariat, Patna Bihar-800001.
3.
General Administrative Department, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Main Secretariat, Patna, Bihar-800001.
4.
OPJS University, Through its Registrar, VPO- Rawatsar Kunjla, Near Sankhu Fort Jhunjhunu Road- Rajgarh (Sadulpur) Churu- Rajasthan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shiva Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, G.P.-26 For the BTSC :
Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Praveen Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) for direction commanding the Respondent No. 1 to immediately proceed with the verification of the documents submitted by the petitioners.
2/6 ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) ог direction(s) for quashing decision or action taken by the respondents that has resulted in the non- verification of documents and ultimately disqualified the petitioners candidature based solely on the apprehension of irregularities in degrees from private universities, without any specific inquiry.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) fordirection to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Junior Engineer based on the outcome of the document verification.
iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 hold diplomas in Civil Engineering from OPJS University, Churu, Rajasthan, and, on the basis of the said qualification, they appeared pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2019 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission. Counsel further submits that the Commission has disqualified the petitioners only on the ground that a shadow has been cast on the result of the University, for which the petitioners may not
3/6 be held responsible.
4. Counsel further submits that the petitioners were regular students and have passed the examination, but due to certain issues at the University, their results have been questioned, which cannot be a ground to discard their candidature in this manner. Counsel further submits that the said University was established under the relevant law of the State and is duly recognized by the UGC, the apex body for maintaining standards of higher education in India.
5. Counsel further submits that the action of the respondent is absolutely arbitrary and based merely on suspicion regarding degrees from a private university, without any proper assessment. Counsel further submits that the blanket nonverification of the petitioners' degrees is an unsustainable and arbitrary presumption against them.
6. Counsel submits that the decision of the Enquiry Committee has been challenged by OPJS University before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Civil Writ Petition No. 17599 of 2024, and the writ petition has been allowed on merits, whereby the order under challenge dated 21.06.2024 was quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is submitted that the rejection of the petitioners' candidature be set aside and their
4/6 candidature be directed to be accepted.
7. Learned counsel for the Commission, on the other hand, submits that the allegation that the Commission has acted only on the basis of a newspaper report is completely false and misconceived. Counsel further submits that 1166 applicants were called for document verification, out of which 367 applicants were from OPJS University, but only 148 of them appeared. The Commission, after scrutiny and due investigation, and also taking into account the joint verification report dated 05.12.2024, declared the certificates of the said 148 applicants belonging to OPJS University as invalid vide Memo No. 3894 dated 20.12.2024.
8. Counsel submits that Annexure-R/1F series are the documents on the basis of which the Commission decided to declare the certificates obtained from OPJS University as invalid and accordingly disqualified the petitioner and others. Counsel further submits that, under the direction of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, correspondence has been made with OPJS University, Churu, Rajasthan. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Manohar Manjhi & Ors. in CWJC No. 4102 of 2025, vide order dated 18.03.2025, has heard and dismissed the writ petition.
5/6
9. Therefore, counsel submits that in no case is the claim of the petitioner sustainable.
10. In light of the submissions made before this Court, it transpires to this Court that the Bihar Technical Service Commission has issued Annexure P/3 on the website in which a categorical remark has been made which is scanned below:-
6/6
11. This Court, upon going through the counteraffidavit, particularly Annexure-F series, finds that the allegation of the Commission is based on documentation and correspondence made by OPJS University, and it is in this background that the public office has made a particular remark/ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. In the view of this Court, the only option left to the petitioner is to verify the truthfulness of the said remark and then come forward before this Court. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is of the view that there is no need for any interference in this case.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U