The selection process for public office cannot be challenged unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or bias, and revisions to eligibility criteria are permissible within the discretion of the appointing authority.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ / writs, order or direction, commanding the Respondent University to make selection / appointment to the post of Director, Extension Education in Bihar Animal Sciences University (BASU), Patna, after publishing the final result of the selection test held in pursuance of Advertisement No. 6/2019, dated 26th of September, 2019 and also to quash the impugned decision of the Respondent – University in selecting the Private Respondent on the post of Director, Extension Education (BASU), Patna on the basis of enlargement of eligibility criteria in Advertisement No. 6/2019, dated 26th of September, 2019, by discarding previous two advertisements bearing Advertisement No. 2 / 2018, dated 6th of January, 2018 and 5 / 2019, dated 18th of July, 2019.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent authority in BASU published an Advertisement No. 2 / 2018 in January, 2018 for selection and appointment of Director, Extension Education in the said university. Subsequently, Advertisement No. 2/2018 was replaced by Advertisement No. 5/2019, published in July, 2019. The said advertisement was also discarded with yet another advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 6 / 2019, dated 26th of September, 2019, in which the Petitioner submitted his candidature and in respect of which selection process was taken up. The Petitioner duly appeared before the Selection Board on 2nd of December, 2019, on which date, the selection test was held. However, no final result was published. It is alleged by the Petitioner that backdoor appointment was made in favour of the Private Respondent even when the Private Respondent was ineligible for the appointment to the said post.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had requisite qualification and experience for the said post but the Private Respondent was selected on the basis of Employment Notice No. 6 / 2019, dated 26th of September, 2019.

4. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioner that BASU issued Advertisement No. 5 / 2019, dated 18th of July, 2019, revising the essential qualification by including “Allied Branches”. The Petitioner applied under the said advertisement, submitting his application along with supporting documents. The Private Respondent also applied under the said advertisement. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Respondent authority diluted the qualifications by including “Allied Branches” only to show favouritism arbitrarily to the Respondents.

5. The contention on behalf of the Respondents in this regard is that the Respondent did not get any candidate for selection on the basis of Advertisement No. 2 / 2018. Therefore, Advertisement No. 5 / 2019 was published enlarging the scope of eligibility. It is also contended on behalf of the Respondents that Advertisement No. 6 / 2019 was published in order to get more candidates for proper selection and it was stated in the said advertisement that the applicants who filed their application for selection in Advertisement No. 5 / 2019 did not require to file fresh application for selection and their applications were retained for consideration.

6. The Petitioner has challenged successive publication of advertisement as arbitrary action on the part of the University without approval of the Board of Management.

7. It appears from the record that as many as five candidates were shortlisted after 10th of October, 2019 and the interview was conducted on 2nd of December, 2019. After interview, the Selection Committee submitted its recommendation to the Board of Management in a sealed envelop on 4th of January, 2020. The Board of Management approved the recommendation, selecting the Private Respondent as most suitable candidate. It is also ascertained from the materials on record that during interview the Petitioner obtained 62 marks, out of 100, while th