Prof. Qamar Ahsan vs Phulo Paswan - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 970

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Pat) 970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, ANJANA MISHRA, JJ.
Prof. Qamar Ahsan and Another – Appellants
Versus
Phulo Paswan and Others – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1114 of 2018, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 20763, 20981 of 2018, Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 60 of 2018
Decided On : 15-03-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Mr. Ranvijay Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Mr. Vijay Prakash Bhargav, Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad, Mr. Vijay Anand, Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Mr. Krishna Chandra, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Mr. Hamendra Prasad Singh, Mr. Kumar Ravi Shankar, Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Mr. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Samir Kumar, Mr. Amit Bhushan, Mr. P.K. Verma, Dr. Anand Kumar.

Headnote:
University Law – Selection & appointment of 22 vacancies of the post of Principals in the constituent colleges of the Magadh University – Regional Deputy Director, Education is an officer of a Government and there is no element of ineligibility of his participation as a member of the Selection Committee – In absence of any mala fide, there is no infirmity in the participation of RDD in the Selection Committee – No material on record that the senior most amongst the head of departments of the University not allowed to participate in the Selection Committee – No selected candidate in the writ-petitioners' category are lower in merit than the writ petitioners – No statement by the petitioners that they were not given ample time to face the interview – There being no scheduled Tribe candidate available, the offer was made to the Scheduled caste candidate – Moreover, it does not affect the petitioners as the petitioners are of general category – Regarding pendency of vigilance case against six candidates, their appointment is to be kept in a sealed cover and the vigilance Department directed to take appropriate steps for filing of a Police Report or otherwise within one month and if no such police report is filed then the said six candidates would be permitted to join on the post they were selected subject to find outcome of the investigation/inquiry – Rest of the appointments made pursuant to the select-list under the interim orders confirmed – Appointment of Dr. A.Q. Ansari quashed as the post held by him was class-III post and he was not qualified or eligible not having the teaching experience of either a professor, Reader or Lecturer, which are the only three designated class of teaching staff recognized under the Bihar State University act – University directed to ensure the joining of all the then selected candidates subject to the directions in respect of the aforesaid six candidates – Writ Petitons and the LPA disposed of. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 47, 49, 55 & 56)
2011(1) PLJR 1134, 2011 (2) PLJR 787, SLP (Civil) No. 11529-11581/2011, 2018 (1) PLJR 285, 2016 (3) PLJR 651, (1991) 4 SCC 109, 1985 PLJR 77 – Referred

JUDGMENT :

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. These two writ petitions challenge the third round of selections held in January, 2015 pursuant to an advertisement dated 25th October, 2008 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the selection and appointment against 22 vacancies of the post of Principals in the constituent colleges of the respondent Magadh University.

2. The prayer is to quash the select list dated 05.09.2018 whereby 22 candidates have declared successful.

3. The process of the first round of selection commenced and after the interview of the applicants, a panel was prepared that was given effect to. The same was challenged in CWJC No. 17804 of 2009 (Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others). The said writ petition was allowed and the appointment of all the 22 Principals was quashed with a direction to the University to commence a fresh selection process after issuing a fresh advertisement within six months but the Principals appointed were allowed to continue without any independent financial power and subject to the control of the respondent University. The said decision is reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 1134.

4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the selected candidates in L.P.A. No. 358 of 2011 that was dismissed on 5th of April, 2011. The judgment is reported in Dr. Om Prakash Singh and Others vs. Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh and Others, 2011 (2) PLJR 787. The said judgment was carried further in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 11529-11531 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6th of May, 2011 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions but issued directions modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the fresh selection shall be held from amongst those who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 25th October, 2008 in accordance with the relevant statutes, rules and regulations and without being influenced by the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the last portion of the order passed by him. The University was directed to complete the selection processes within four months and till then the petitioners were allowed to continue in their present position. It was further made clear that the order passed by the Supreme Court would not create any equity in favour of the petitioners. The judgment of the Apex Court is extracted herein-under:

“The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereby the Letters Patent Appeal filed by them against the order of the learned Single Judge who quashed their selection and appointment as Principals of the colleges affiliated to Magadh University, Gaya.

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

In our view, the detailed reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for nullifying the selection and appointments of the petitioners was legally correct and the Division Bench did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But, at the same time, we feel that while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench should have clarified that the University shall make fresh selection in accordance with the extant statutes, rules and regulations without taking into consideration the directions given by the learned Single Judge.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with the direction that the University shall make fresh selection from amongst those who had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued on 25.10.2008 strictly in accordance with the relevant statutes, rules and regulations and without being influenced by the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the last portion of the order passed by him.

The University shall complete the process of selection within a period of four months. Till then, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in their present position. However, it is made clear that this shall not create any equity in