Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763)

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Shashi Bhushan Prasad...

In Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 763), the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) disqualified candidates with private university diplomas unapproved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in its recruitment for Junior Engineers. This criterion was challenged based on Bharathidasan University v. AICTE (2001), which held that universities do not require AICTE approval for technical programs. The Patna High Court initially directed BTSC to complete the selection but allowed the State to cancel the process and restart recruitment with amended rules, a decision later appealed by the aggrieved candidates. In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court rejected the State’s move to cancel the selection, citing K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), where altering selection criteria post-selection was deemed unfair as it “changes the rules of the game after the game has been played.” The Court directed BTSC to create a fresh selection list, incorporating both the previously disqualified candidates and those initially selected, thus upholding the candidates’ rights against arbitrary rule changes.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

41-A CrPC Notice Not Valid If Served Through WhatsApp or Electronic Means

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690), held that notices under Section 41-A of the CrPC cannot be served via WhatsApp or other electronic means. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the service methods prescribed under Chapter VI of the CrPC, 1973. This ruling Read more »

Shajahan Vs. State, (2018) 13 SCC 347

The court observed that, during the process of performing dacoity, if a dacoit murders a person, all the co-dacoits will also be held liable under section 396 IPC, even if they did not participate in the killing, and were only a part of the dacoity. Both 302 and 396 IPC Read more »

Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi Air – 2020 sc-405

The court while ascertaining the scope of Sec 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 held that the Act does not deal with offences which are ‘heinous’ in nature.  It observes that even if a child commits a heinous offence, he cannot be automatically tried as an adult. Before, trying Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.