Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 11 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Kumar Praveen Pratap & Ors.; Respondents – Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
  • Appeals: Multiple Civil Appeals (SLP (C) Nos. 3412‑3414, 2729, 2187, 6200, 5600, 4797, 9021, 9020, 10930, 17237 of 2024) arising from a common judgment dated 06‑12‑2023 of the Patna High Court Division Bench.
  • Background: The appellants were appointed on contract between 2005‑2010 as Lab Technician/X‑ray Technician in government medical institutions under Bihar Lab Technician Cadre Rules 2014. In 2015 the Commission advertised regular appointments requiring a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (DMLT). The appellants held a higher qualification – Bachelor in Medical Laboratory Technology (BMLT) – and were initially told they were ineligible. After a High Court direction (30‑06‑2016) the Commission allowed their participation, but the 29‑05‑2020 result omitted them. A further High Court order (03‑03‑2021) directed revision of the merit list. The Commission appealed via Letter Patent Appeals; the Division Bench on 06‑12‑2023 set aside the 03‑03‑2021 order and allowed the Commission’s appeals.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings: The Court heard extensive counsel submissions. It reiterated two legal principles: (i) allowing higher‑qualified candidates for a post intended for lower qualification deprives genuine candidates; (ii) selection must follow the rules in force at the start of the process.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court Division Bench judgment.
  • Directions issued:

A. The Bihar State Government shall formulate a scheme to regularise the appellants to the post of Lab Technician/X‑ray Technician and shall regularise their services.

B. Appellants shall not receive seniority or pay‑scale benefits for the period prior to regularisation.

C. Their period of service shall be reckoned for pension purposes if the post is pensionable.

D. The State is given liberty to decide whether the appointments are treated as extra‑cadre contractual appointments or within the cadre.

E. The interim order dated 05‑02‑2024 directing parties to maintain status‑quo is vacated.

F. The State is granted liberty to fill the remaining vacant posts (610 posts remain unfilled).

  • The Court clarified that these directions are confined to the appellants and arise from the peculiar facts of this case.
  • The Court also granted leave, allowed interlocutory applications for impleadment and transposition of Respondent No. 29 as petitioner, and disposed of the civil appeals as per the signed order.
  • Any pending applications, if any, are to stand disposed of.

Topics: Regularisation, Public Service Employment, Judicial Order