2011 Supreme(Pat) 180

PATNA HIGH COURT
Jayanandan Singh, J.
Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary
CWJC No. 17804 of 2009 17993 of 2009
Decided On : JANUARY 28, 2011

Headnote:University Laws-Bihar State Universities Act, 1976-Section 57 r/w Statute Contained in Governors Secretariat memo no. 2187 dated 30.6.2008-Selection for appointment to the post of teachers and officers (other than Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Dean of faculty, in the present case Principal)-Selection Committee coustituted under the Act and empowered under the statute has a statutory status and is to perform statutory functions-it is clearly responsible for initiating the process of appointment on vacancies available under the University as may be informed by the functionaries of the university-the process of selection which this committee is to held has necessarily to start with the publication of advertisement finalized by it-though the statute does not lay down any procedure for proceeding in the matter and the committee could adopt its own procedure, but it is clear from the statute that no discretion is left out to the committee to assess the academic qualifications and the research work of a candidate in any other manner than laid down in the statute-the only discretion left out by the statute is in respect of 20% marks allotted for interview-the selection committee, constituted under the provisions of new section 57 of the 1976 Act, is an independent body and has been bestowed with an independent statutory status under the Act, not subject to any control of the university-the jurisdiction of the Chancellor as contained in clause (iv) of Section 9 empowers the chancellor to annul any proceeding or order of the University which may not be in conformity of the Act, Statutes, Ordinance or Regulation-in view of the status of the selection committee, flowing from the new Section 57 of the 1976 Act, any act, decision or action of the selection committee cannot be considered as any act of the University and, therefore, will clearly not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the chancellor-hence the petitioners have no alternative remedy available in the present case. (Paras 9, 10 & 11)

       University Laws-Appointment of Principal in a Constituent College-consideration of teachers of 4th phase Colleges-it is true that if a temporary appointment, even in an affiliated college, matures into a permanent appointment, the entire length of service of the incumbent has to be taken into consideration for fixation of seniority, promotion etc.-the Statute provides that for appointment of principal a candidate has necessarily to be a teacher in a University-the history of 4th phase College is quite different from general college-the teachers of 4th phase colleges required a seal of approval to the validity of their appointment, in terms of the recommendations of the Commission constituted by the Apex Court, its report being affirmed in (2005)9 SCC 129 before they could be considered as legally appointed teachers of the University-no such approval obtained in case of respondent who are teachers of 4th phase college. (Para 12)

       University Laws-Appointment of principal in the constituent colleges-only 21 vacancies were to be filled up on the basis of the advertisement and applications received-however, the respondents filled up more vacancies out of the panel prepared-it is settled law that a selection process comes to an end after a panel is finally published and recommended to the appointing authority per appointments therefrom against the vacancies advertised-clearly no post falling vacant subsequent to the same could be filled up from the said panel as neither the post was under consideration in the process of selection nor was it intended and notified at the initial stage itself, by making a stipulation in the advertisement-the vacancies, which were not available even on the date of final publication of the panel cannot be allowed to be filled up from that panel. (Para 13)

       University Laws-Appointment of principal-selection process-scope of judicial review-it is true that the High Court cannot sit over, as an appellate authority, over the marks awarded by an expert body in interview to the individual candidates but, if from the marks awarded, a clear pattern is discernible which shows that the same has been done in a planned manner to give undue advantage to some candidates and disadvantage to others, the High Court can surely form an opinion that the marks awarded by the expert body to the individual candidates in interview was not on objective and valid consideration. (Para 14)

       University Laws-Appointment of principal-panel prepared on the basis of application received-no pleading on record and no document available with the affidavits of any party to show that a final combined merit list was prepared by the Selection Committee, on the basis of which the panel was prepared-this clearly vitiates the entire selection process and goes to the not of the matter-action of the Selection Committee in the process of selection was root fair-entire selection process quashed-Selection Committee directed to proceed afresh in terms of the directions given in the order. (Paras 17 & 19)

       1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 308, AIR 1996 SC 352, 2010 (3) PLJR (SC) 165, 2010 (3) PLJR (SC) 100, 2010 (2) PLJR (SC) 26, 1988 PLJR 102 (DB), 2008 (2) Supreme Today 328, (1995)3 SCC 486, (2002)10 SCC 269, 1992 (1) PLJR 596 (FB), (1996)4 SCC 319, AIR 1998 SC 2012 (1990)1 SCC 305, (1997)4 SCC 575, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 481, (2005)9 SCC 129-Referred to.