SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.
Kumari Anjana Wife of Sanjay Sinha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2965 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Adv., Ms. Ankita Kumari, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Sinha, Adv., Mr. Fazle Karim, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Government Pleader, Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Nadim Seraj, Adv., Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv., Mr. Bindyachal Rai, Adv.

The court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and legitimate expectations in administrative appointments, allowing reinstatement due to unjust termination based on misrepresentation and ante-dating of orders.

Headnote:(A) Bihar State University Act, 1976 - Section 2(am) - Administrative Law - Quashing of appointment cancellation - Petitioner’s appointment as Deputy Registrar cancelled, justified relaxation of minimum requirements for experience under University Statute overlooked - 'Legitimate expectation' established as the petitioner held administrative experience and educational qualifications as per the advertisement - Ante-dating of the order evident, leading to procedural irregularities - Petition allowed, reinstatement ordered. (Paras 44, 50, 54, 56)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who was appointed as Deputy Registrar after being the topper in the merit list, faced termination without justifiable cause or due consideration of her qualifications and experience that met the criteria set forth in the relevant advertisement. Complaints were raised about her qualifications years after her appointment.

Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation of petitioner's appointment to be illegal, arbitrary, and based on misrepresentation of qualifications and experience as well as procedural lapses in the Chancellor's order passing process. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all benefits.

Issues: The key issues included the validity of the order cancelling the appointment, the equivalence of prior experience, and the implications of ante-dating the order issued by the Chancellor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment was not sustainable due to failure to adhere to the procedural requirements, misrepresentation of facts, and violation of principles of legitimate expectation and equity. The court emphasized the importance of accurate representations in judicial and quasi-judicial decisions.

Result: Writ petition allowed; appointment cancellation quashed; petitioner reinstated.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks reinstatement and quashing of termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. discussion on qualifications and experience for deputy registrar. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. challenges to the legitimacy of the appointment process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's review of the selection committee's findings. (Para 25 , 26 , 30)
5. order to reinstate petitioner upheld. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 4 as well as the consequential order issued vide Memo No. 120 dated 06.01.2024, cancelling the appointment of petitioner as Dy. Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna;

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Order or Direction, commanding the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits of continuity, seniority, arrears of salary etc, in accordance with law.

3. The short fact of the present case is that the petitioner being the topper in the final merit list of BPSC got appointed as CDPO in Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 1689 dated 11.10.2000 on the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 where she joined on 24.10.2000. She gained 13 years of unblemished service experience by 2013, and after completion of 10 years of service, she was granted the benefits of first Assured Career Progression (ACP) in PB-2 Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-(Annexure P/1 of the Writ Petition). Meanwhile, an advertisement dated 19.08.2011 was published by the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna calling for application from eligible candidates for appointment against various Academic, Administrative and Non-Teaching posts of the University, including the post of Deputy Registrar. Following are the minimum qualifications prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar-

Section B

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR/ CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS/PENSION &

RETIREMENT BENEFIT OFFICER

Minimum Qualifications:

Master Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of “B” in UGC seven-point scale.

Experience:

9 years of Experience as Assistant Professor in AGP (Academic Grade Pay) of Rs. 6000/- and above with experience in educational administration;

Or

Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education;

Or

5 years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or on an Equivalent Post;

Apart from above, Clause 8 (i) of the General Conditions prescribed in the Advertisement, specifically empowered the University to relax the minimum requirement of Qualification and/or Experience on the recommendations of the Screening/ Selection Committee. (Annexure P/2 of the Writ Petition)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has experience of more than 11 years on a Pay Scale and/ or Grade Pay higher than what was admissible to Assistant Registrar or on an Equivalent Post of the University. The petitioner, therefore, fulfilled the Experience qualification as required under the third category prescribed in Clause 1 of Section "B" of the aforesaid Advertisement. Further, the petitioner also possess Master’s Degree in First Division i.e., more than 60% of marks and had done her M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Based on these qualifications her application was duly forwarded by the competent authority of the State Government on 13.12.2012 (Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition).

5. Thereafter, the matter of appointment against the said post of Deputy Registrar was considered by the duly constituted University Selection Committee and the petitioner was awarded the highest marks by the said Selection Committee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top