Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 1234
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha and Gurusharan Sharma JJ.
Rajeev Ranjan
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12382 of 1996 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Headnote:Bihar State Universities Act, 1976-Section 58(2) (Kha)(1) and Patna University Act, 1976-Section 57(2) (Kha) (i) as amended by Acts, 17 & 18 of 1993 with retrospective effect-Appointment of lecturers-Validity of recruitment process-Amending law making Readers also eligible in case of non availability of University Professor in concerned subject to advise the Commission as internal experts-Competence of State legislature not being questioned-Enactment cannot be invalidated except on the ground of legislative competence. (Para 25)
AIR 1985 SC 551, AIR 1988 SC 1136, AIR 1975 SC 1116-Relied.
Constitution of India-Article 213(2)(a) - Appointment of lecturers-Amendment does not relate back to the date of advertisement i.e. 18-12-95-Legislature approving the amendments to a statute with retrospective effect-Action taken before such legislation by ordinances would be deemed to have been taken under the legislation-The earlier actions is saved through "Saving clause" contained in section 3(1) of the Act-It is not open to the court to question the collective wisdom of legislature. (Para 26)
AIR 1987 SC 579, AIR 1997 SC 293, (1994)3 SCC1, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 250, (1998) 5 SCC 643, 1994(2) PLJR (SC) 11, AIR 1981 SC 1473, AIR 1987 SC 454, AIR 1997 SC 293, 1996(2) PLJR (SC) 223-Ref.
AIR 1970 SC 564, 1988 PLJR (SC) 45, AIR 1962 SC 945, (1990)3 SCC 157-Relied.
(1983)3 SCC 284. (1983)3 SCC 33, AIR 1990 SC 405-Dist.
Service Law-Appointment-Selection criteria-Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof and therefore by itself cannot be a ground to invalidate the selection process-Validity or otherwise of selection process would necessarily depend on the methodology evolved in making the selection. (Para 36)
Service Law-Appointment of lecturers-Selection criteria-Weightage-In the matter of selection for appointment to the service at a relatively younger age when the candidates personality is yet to develop and it may be too early to identify the personal qualities which assume importance in latter part of ones life greater weight should be given to the academic performance than the written test- The emphasis on interview test in such cases should be minimum-But where recruitment is to be made for employment from amongst persons of relatively mature personality greater weight may be given to the interview part of the selection. (Para 45)
AIR 1964 SC 1823, (1971)1 SCC 38, (1980)4 SCC 95, (1981)1 SCC 722, (1981)4 SCC 159, (1984) 2 SCC 652, (1985)4 SCC 417, (1987) Supp. SCC 401, (1988)3 SCC 241, (1991)1 SCC 662, (1991)3 SCC 368, (1992)1 SCC 28, (1993)1 SCC 17, (1993)3 SCC 663, (1994)1 SCC 150, (1994)5 SCC 359, 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 35, (1997)9 SCC 151, 1994(2) PLJR 168.
Judicial Review-Considerations in taking administrative decisions and making judicial review of the administrative decisions are not the same-While there is a scope for play-in-the joints in administration, in-making judicial review the Court is not supposed to examine the correctness of such decisions-The judicial review is made not of the correctness of the decision but of the decision making process-If the views of the matter can be taken the court is not supposed to substitute its own view as being better view. (Para 50)
Service Law-Appointment-Duration of interview-Normal duration of interview would vary from post to post and nature of functions and duties of the post concerned-No uniform rule or formula can be laid down-Except in individual cases where it is proved by cogent evidence that the candidates were denied proper opportunity at the interview for oblique reasons to push them out of the competition-It would be very difficult for the court to interfere with the result of interview. (Para 54)
1995(2) PLJR 780, (1973)3 SCC 663, AIR 1991 SC 2248-Dist.
(1981)1 SCC 722-Relied.
University Laws-Appointment of lecturers-Higher allocation of marks 60% for interview and 40 % for academic qualification may not be arbitrary. (Paras 47 to 62)
(1994) 2 PLJR 168, (1994)1 SCC 150, (1993)1 SCC 17, (1997)9 SCC 151 , (1994)5 SCC 359, 1955(Supp) 1 SCC 35-Relied.
(1995)6 SCCl 1-Dist.
Service Law-Appointment-Person having participated in the selection and taken chance of selection-Cannot challenge the process of selection. (Para 63)
Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission Act, 1987 as amended by Act of 1992 deleting sections 5 and 9-After deleting these sections there was no legal bar to making a centralized selection and preparation of common panel when all the candidates were allowed option of university and selected candidates were finally allotted to different universities on merit-cum-choice basis-There is no error of law in making a common or centralised selection of the candidates. (Paras 73 & 74)
1991 (2) PLJR 725-Dist.
Service Law -Appointment-Advertisement as well as selection can be made only for vacancies-existing or anticipated but not for vacancies which may occur in future. (Para 76)
1993 Supp (4) SCC 377, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 308, (1996)4 SCC 319-Ref.
Service Law-Where the number of persons appointed is very large it may be difficult to annul the entire selection than in individual cases unless a very large preparation of selection is held to be biased-Allegation of bias has been made with respect to only 30 candidates, the selection of rest 1360 or so cannot be said to be result of bias-Inter se merit cannot be looked into by the Court-Court cannot sit in appeal over selection and assess the comparative merit of the selected and unselected candidates-Nothing on the record to show that selection was on account of undue favour shown to them because of their relationship with V.I.P. Son of Chairman of Commission was selected for appointment but he did not participate in the interview of his son-No adverse inference can be drawn-Duty of the court is to scrutinize the allegation with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them in cases where they have no foundation in fact: (Paras 79 to 84)
AIR 1966 SC 1942, (1984)2 SCC 631, (1985)4 SCC 417, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 313-Relied.
AIR 1964 SC 72, AIR 1987 SC 294, (1987) 1 SCC 228-Dist.
S.N.Jha, J.
1. In this batch of 11 writ petitions which have been heard together the petitioners have challenged the validity of the recruitment process leading to the appointment of 1378 Lecturers in different constituent colleges in the State of Bihar.
2. While admitting the writ petitions by common order on 21.3.97 this Court directed that CWJC Nos. 11958 and 12382 of 1996 shall be treated as the representative cases. Observing that the appointees are entitled to opportunity of hearing, they were directed to be added as respondents in those two cases and in view of their number, a general notice in two newspapers was ordered to be published at the cost of the petitioners in lieu of individual notices by ordinary process which would have been very time consuming. Out of 1378 appointees, we were told, 973 have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. No grievance has been made as to the service of notice, or the mode thereof, from any quarter. Affidavits- in-opposition etc. have been filed in CWJC Nos. 11958 and 12382 of 1996 alone. However, as the leading argument was made with reference to CWJC No. 12382 of 1996 I shall aver to the facts of the case and the documents as described in that case except as indicated otherwise in this judgment.
3. Before stating the facts and indicating the ground of challenge, a brief introduction of the case may be made. The appointment of Lecturers in the constitutent colleges, that is, in colleges maintained or controlled by the Universities in the State of Bihar, is made under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (the BU Act for short) and the Patna University Act 1976 (the PU Act) for short). There are 11 universities in the State, besides two Agricultural Universities. While the Patna University is governed by the PU Act, the remaining 10 universities are governed by the BU Act, and the respective statutes framed thereunder. The provisions relating to appointment of the lecturers are contained in sections 57 and 58 of the BU Act and sections 56 and 57 of the PU Act. Reference to the provisions of BU Act would suffice as the corresponding provisions of the PU Act are pari materia the same. While section 57 of the Act lays down that the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (in short the Commission) shall select the candidates and make recommendation, section 58 provides that the appointment shall be made on the recommendation of the Commission. There is a College Service Commission for making similar selection and recommendation for appointment of lecturers in the affiliated colleges under section 57(4) but in these cases we are not concerned with the same. J shall refer to the relevant provisions of these two sections later in this judgement.
4. On 23.11.93 the Commission invited applications, vide Advt. No.1/BUSC/93, for appointment of Lecturers in different subjects in different universities from candidates possessing "Masters Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade (B+) and uniformly good academic records". M.Phil and Ph.D Degree in the relevant subject was to be treated as an additional qualification; however, the minimum qualification of Masters Degree with at feast 55% marks and uniformly good academic records Was not to be relaxed even in respect of such candidates, that is, candidates who had egrees like M.Phil/Ph.D. The advertisement came in under challenge in writ petitions at the instance of Bhagalpur University Research Scholars Association and UGG/CSIR(NET qualified) Fellows Association. By judgment and order dated 3.3.94, reported in 1994(2) PLJR 168, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the Commission to consider the applications of only such candidates who had passed the NET examination in terms of the Regulations framed by the UGC. It was held that in terms of the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1957 it is the UGC alone which can lay
