Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.
CWJC No.10935 of 2021
(8.10.2024)
Reena Kumari & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition – Locus Standi – Person aggrieved must be one who has suffered a legal injury – Doors of Court could be made open at instance of persons or authorities under certain categories and every other person cannot move a writ petition challenging actions of State Government or its instrumentalities – Otherwise, doctrine of locus standi or a standing requirement would be rendered meaningless and thereby introduce a procedure which is not judicially recognised – Cases may arise where there is public or personal injury by act or omission of State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals – In such cases, a person having sufficient interest can maintain action challenging legality of such act or omission – Citizens must be allowed to resort to a legal remedy in Courts and should not be forced to go to streets to resort to unconstitutional methods to express their protest against such Governmental decisions – Any such situation created by taking a narrow, pedantic view about locus standi, even in situations in which arbitrary or capricious or mala fide exercise of power is alleged and extent and gravity of such unlawful action is such as would make a mockery of Rule of Law, consequence would be disastrous in that it might mark the beginning of end of faith of the people in Rule of Law – Petitioner must be in a position to demonstrate before Court that he has personally suffered infringement of a right on account of something done by State or its instrumentalities – This would authorise such a person to prefer and sustain a writ petition – Petitioners have locus standi to file present petition seeking a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus as petitioners have been able to demonstrate that a legal right has been violated and/or they have suffered a legal injury. (Paras 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.8 and 9.10)
Constitution of India – Articles 29 and 30 – Minority Institutions do not have absolute right – All laws made by State to regulate administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also – But if any such regulations interfere with overall administrative control by management over staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions – A minority institution which receives aid out of State Fund owes a greater responsibility to society as children of minority are entitled to get same standard of education like in State run or other private institution – There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence – There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that administration is efficient and sound so as to serve academic needs of institution. (Paras 10.8 and 10.11)
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 57-A and 57-B – Cancellation of selection process for recruitment to post of Assistant Professor in Departments of Persian & Chemistry in Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya – College in question is a recognized minority educational institution – Selection is to be processed by Selection Committee constituted by University under Section 57B of Act – Selection Committee constituted shall be bound by procedure of selection prescribed by Statute to be framed by University – If minority institution has a better candidate available than one nominated under a regulatory regime, the institution would be within its rights to reject nomination made by authorities but if person nominated for imparting education is otherwise better qualified and suitable, any rejection of such nomination by minority institution would never help such institution – Selection Committee was constituted and entire selection process has been conducted in complete breach of Section 57 B of Act as quorum required for Selection Committee was totally missing, rendering constitution of Interview Board, illegal and arbitrary – Governing Body of College, directed to issue fresh advertisement and constitute a Selection Committee afresh in compliance of provisions of the Bihar Universities Act and take further necessary steps in accordance with law – Writ application allowed. (Paras 10.12, 10.13, 10.16, 10.22, 10.23 and 11)
Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.—Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel, aptly assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shristi Singh, learned Advocate, for the respondent nos.7 to 11, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Advocate, for the Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, Mr. Sidhartha Prasad, learned Advocate, for the Magadh University and Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned GA-27, for the State.
2. By filing the present petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for the following relief/reliefs:—
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Advertisement published in the Hindi daily Hindustan dated 06/10/2019 issued by Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, whereby and whereunder it has been informed that the advertisement issued in March 2018 and for which interview were held in February 2019 and for which panel was prepared – have been cancelled by the Governing Body of the College, without specifying any reason as to what were the compelling circumstances which warranted cancellation of the entire selection process, in which petitioners have succeeded.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Advertisement published in the Hindi daily Hindustan on 06/10/2019 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Departments of Persian & Chemistry in Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, whereby and whereunder fresh applications have been invited for appointment by cancelling the earlier Advertisement issued in March 2018 and for which interview were held in February 2019, in completely arbitrary and illegal manner and for which no justifiable reason much less legally sustainable reasons have been provided.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ in nature of mandamus or any other order, holding and declaring that the entire selection process has been conducted in the breach of Section 57-B of Bihar State University Act,1976 as quorum required for selection committee was totally missing, rendering the constitution of interview board, illegal and arbitrary.
(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding upon the Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya to produce the minute of second round of selection process, which has been kept by him in iron chest and merit list of same was not published and after such production be quashed as same has been prepared ignoring the experience candidates like petitioner’s.
(v) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding upon the respondent authorities, particularly the Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya to implement the result of Advertisement issued in March 2018 and for which interview were held in February 2019 forthwith– as the selected candidates have committed no fault and they fulfill all the requirements as per prevailing UGC norms and any delay in their appointment would be per se illegal.
(vi) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing upon the Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya to produce the minutes of Constitution of selection committee as per Section 57 B of the Bihar State University Act.
(vii) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature mandamus or any other appropriate order, restraining the respondent College from taking any coercive steps like removal of Petitioners from the post of Assistant Professor (Adhoc) on which they are presently working or termination, during the pendency of the writ petition.
(viii) To any other relief or relief which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(ix) Cost of this litigation.
Fact of the case
3. The brief fact emanates from the case record is that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Assistant Professor for the post of chemistry on ad hoc basis on 02.01.2018 by the orders of Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib Co
Minority institutions have an absolute right to select their staff without interference from educational authorities, as protected under Article 30 of the Constitution.
UGC Regulations cannot interfere with the fundamental rights of minority institutions to administer their educational affairs, as mandated by Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 of the Constitution of India are subject to reasonable regulations that are necessary to....
The court held that the eligibility for consideration in teaching appointments is confined to those appointed before a specific cutoff date, and the petitioners, appointed later, do not qualify.
The eligibility criteria for appointment as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of an Intermediate College recognized and governed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
