Only individuals who have applied for the posts and have legitimate claims for appointment, in violation of the Rule, Statute, and procedure provided under the Statute, can challenge the appointment and selection.

1. Petitioner, who was working on the post of Reader and Head of Department of Philosophy in P.B.S. College, Banka, a Constituent College of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, had initially filed this application for cancellation of Advertisement No. 2 of 2007, published for the appointment of Principals and other posts, for a direction to initiate the process of appointment afresh in accordance with the revised Statute as contained in Letter No. B.S.O.-23/2007-2187/G.(1) dated 30.6.2008 and also to restrain the respondents from continuing with the process of appointment under Advertisement No. 2 of 2007 published in daily newspaper in the month of October, 2007.

2. Subsequently, I.A. No. 6370 of 2008 was filed for amending the relief prayed in the writ application on account of certain developments taken during the pendency of the writ application. The amended prayer is for quashing of the Notification No. Appt. 3/2008 dated 29.9.2008 issued under the signature of CCDC, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University and for staying operation of said notification during the pendency of the writ application. The prayer was also made to implead such persons as party respondents, who have already been appointed on the post of Principals, on account of their selection in response to Advertisement No. 2 of 2007. Prayer was for impleading fifteen persons appointed to the posts of Principals as respondents.

3. The Interlocutory Application was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2008 and averment in the said I.A. was directed to be treated as part of the writ application.

4. Advertisement No. 2 of 2007 was issued under the signature of Registrar of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University for appointment on 29 posts of Principals in Bhagalpur University. Consequent to the advertisement several applications were filed by the intending candidates. Admittedly the petitioner did not apply and for that an explanation has given in the interlocutory application that under the bona fide belief, he did not apply as in the past only 40% weightage was to be given to the career record and 60% weightage through the interview.

5. Petitioners case is that despite his working in the University from 1976 with an unblemished career record he did not apply under the bona fide belief as stated above. However, subsequent to the publication of advertisement and during the pendency of the initiation of the selection process new Statute was introduced on 30.6.2008 in which there was a great departure from the earlier rule. Under the amended rule 80% weightage was given to the career record and only 20% weightage was to be given to the performance in the interview. If this would have been the situation on the date of publication of the advertisement, the petitioner would have also applied as others, since he was eligible for the post of Principal on the date of the publication of advertisement.

6. Admittedly, the Advertisement No. 2 of 2007 was issued prior to the issuance of the notification bringing amendment in the law relating to appointment to the post of Teachers and Officers in the constituent colleges of the State of Bihar. Earlier appointments used to be made by the Vice-Chancellors of the respective Universities of Bihar on the recommendation of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission, established under the Act of 1987. The amendment was brought through Bihar University (Constituent College) Service Commission (Repeal) Act, 2007 and also by Bihar State Universities Amendment Act, 2007 and Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2007. Under the amended provisions appointment of Teachers and Officers has to be made by the respective Universities within the State of Bihar on the recommendation of the Selection Committees constituted under the Amendment Act of 2007 by following the procedure of selection as prescribed under the Statute under Section 57(B) of the State Universities Act.

7. The case which has been made by the petitioner is that j