In all these five writ petitions the question involved is the same. It relates to the validity of the selection of Physical Training Instructors for four constituent Colleges under the B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

2. As all parties have appeared, filed their counter affidavits and reply thereto, the pleading being complete, with consent of parties, all the five writ petitions were heard for final disposal at this stage itself.

3. On 04.11.2009 C.W.J.C. No.14680 of 2009 was filed by Nutan Kumari challenging the selection process as adopted by the University concerned and the selection of four persons as Physical Training Instructors in four constituent Colleges of the University in question. The four persons are, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mithilesh Kumar Mani, Ravi Shankar Kumar and Chandrama Singh. They have been made respondents in this writ petition and pursuant to notices issued have appeared. These four persons have individually filed writ petitions. Sanjay Kumar Singh filed C.W.J.C. No.3580 of 2010 on 25.02.2010, Mithilesh Kumar Mani filed C.W.J.C. No.3611 of 2010 on 25.02.2010, Ravi Shankar Kumar filed C.W.J.C. No.3713 of 2010 on 26.02.2010 and Chandrama Singh filed C.W.J.C. No.3724 of 2010 on 26.02.2010. These four persons have challenged the order of the Chancellor of the Universities, who upon enquiry report submitted to it cancelled their selections and consequently their appointment as Physical Training Instructors as done by the University concerned. It may be noted here that though Nutan Kumari filed the writ petition making the selected candidates to the writ petition as party-respondents and also filed intervention applications in the other four writ petitions in which those, petitioners did not make Nutan Kumari a party-respondent. Intervention applications are allowed. It is because of these that all the five writ petitions were taken up together to decide the validity of the action taken by the Chancellor and the validity of the selection process.

4. Nutan Kumari, the writ petitioner in the first filed writ petition basically challenges the selection and the selection process on the ground of total lack of transparency, the details whereof will be considered at appropriate stage. She supports the later action of the Chancellor in cancelling the selection process itself based on three member enquiry report as well.

5. On the other hand, the four remaining writ petitioners whose selection were cancelled, pursuant to the Chancellor's order, initially in the writ petition challenged the action of the Chancellor alone but when all the five writ petitions were taken up together they joined issues with regard to the validity of the selection process and their selections as well which rendered the challenge to order of the Chancellor on technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice not necessary for decision.

6. In fairness to the counsel for the four selected candidates in their writ petitions as initially filed they had challenged the action of the University in terminating their appointment, pursuant to the order of the Chancellor, which was based on high powered enquiry report. Their only ground of attack was that they had not been heard by the Chancellor before the Chancellor ordered for cancellation of their selection and cancellation of the selection process, but in view of the challenge to the selection process as made by Nutan Kumari long prior to the order of the Chancellor before this Court, that issue losses significance and what become significant is the validity of the selection process and the selection.

7. It appears that on 13.07.2008 an advertisement was issued by the B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, inter alia, for appointment of Physical Training Instructors in four of its constituent Colleges, one in each College, namely, R.D.S. College, Muzaffarpur, M.S.K.B. College, Muzaffarpur, L.N. College, Bhagwanpur and J.S. College, Chandauli. The advertisement is Annexure-1