Selection Process for PTIs in University

ORDER :

1. The appellant,¹[Parties have been described in the manner in which they have been arrayed in Civil Appeal No. 6232/2013.] is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th May, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna whereunder the appeals,²[Letter Patent Appeals No. 408/2011, 482/2011, 593/2011, 713/2011 and 751/2011] filed by the respondents No. 5 to 8 herein working as Physical Training Instructors,³[For short ‘PTI’] in four different colleges under the respondent No.1 - University were allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th February, 2011 passed in CWJC No. 14680 of 2020 filed by the appellant terminating their services was quashed. It was further clarified that if the respondent No.1 – University, including the Chancellor were so inclined, they would be entitled to proceed afresh with the inquiry directed to be conducted in the matter after due notice to the private respondents herein.

2. We may first take note of some relevant facts of the case.

2.1. An advertisement was issued by the respondent No.1-University on 13th July, 2008, inviting applications for appointment of PTIs in four of its constituent colleges. The said advertisement laid down three specific conditions which are as follows: -

(a) Each candidate would separately apply for the post of PTI in respect of each college.

(b) The eligibility criteria for applying for the subject post was possession of a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education or Graduation with Diploma in Physical Education from a recognized institution.

(c) The age limit for all the posts was prescribed to be as per the Government rules/orders.

2.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the appellant and the private respondents submitted their applications along with several other applicants. All the parties submitted separate applications in respect of each of the four colleges.

2.3. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the private respondents No.5 to 8 were found eligible and were called for an interview. For conducting the interview, the respondent No.1 - University constituted a five Members’ Selection Committee,⁴[Vide office order dated 27th October, 2008].

2.4. The Selection Committee met on 6th November, 2008 and interviewed the applicants. The Committee conducted four different sets of interviews for each candidate in respect of the applications submitted by them for four colleges in question. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared. A perusal of the said merit list reveals that though all the parties in the present proceedings were interviewed by the Selection Committee for the posts available in the four colleges on the same day but at four different times, there was a great variation in the marks assigned to the appellant and the respondents No.5 to 8 during the interview. This aspect was particularly noticed by the learned Single Judge, who observed as follows: -

“At this stage, I may notice one thing that stands out in the tabulation of the merit list. As noted above, all the five writ petitioners were interviewed for all the four Colleges by the same Committee of five persons allegedly four times on the same day. All other marks with regard to academic qualifications and marks for higher qualifications and experience were the same in all the four charts but the marks given in interview (viva) varied drastically. For example, petitioner, Nutan Kumari in one interview was awarded 24 marks out of 30 in another 16 out of 30 in the third 12 out of 30 and in the 4th 20 out of 30. Such erratic variation is there in all the four merit lists where someone scores less in one and more in another. University is not able to give any justification for these markings. Details of other markings will be discussed at appropriate stage. Upon tabulation of results on 14th February, 2009 University issued appointment letters in favour of the four writ petitioners leaving aside Nutan Kumari. Apparently, the four selected petitioners gave their joining imme