Administrative authorities must adhere strictly to the terms of public advertisements regarding eligibility and selection, ensuring fairness and the principle of legitimate expectation, particularly when candidates have relied on established practices.

JUDGMENT :

Purnendu Singh, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The defect(s) as pointed out by the office are ignored.

3. The issue involved in all the writ applications are similar and at the request of the respective counsels, all are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

4. The petitioners have raised common questions that in spite of them having met out the objection, which was sought from the candidates/petitioners on account of alleged failure on their part that either some of the petitioners have not furnished the creamy layer certificates, domicile certificate, requisite total fee as per their respective categories, experience certificate etc. as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 21.09.2020 for alleged shortfall, they have not been called for interview, which will end on 24.02.2025.

5. The objection of the Bihar State University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") is basically on the proposition of law that once the advertisement has notified the last date of submitting documents and other supporting documents, the date must be given effect to and any short fall in non submission on or before the last date i.e. 02.11.2020 in the terms of the advertisement, if received after the date shall be rejected by the selecting authority and that no application / document shall be entertained by the Commission if the same is filed after the last date therefore, the petitioners have not been called for interview. In some of the writ petitions counter affidavits have been filed in which also the stand of the commission is that in terms of the conditions contained in the advertisement, the petitioners were required to furnish documents and fees along with the application at the time of submitting the form and submission of the hard copy within the stipulated time. It has been answered that in absence of the commission having reserved its powers to grant any relaxation in this regard in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners have been found not entitled/ eligible for being called for interview and in support has placed reliance on the catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court, particularly, in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18, Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaulla Khan reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 and the recent Judgment passed in Divya Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448 , the commission cannot grant selective relaxations.

6. Facts reveal that dissatisfied by the manner in which the Commission has proceeded, the Division Bench of this Court while hearing LPA No. 604 of 2023 (The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Amod Prabodhi & Ors.) arising out of CWJC No. 8932 of 2020, in respect of the same Advertisement has noticed in paragraph no. 38, as under:

"38. We cannot but observe, with some anguish, that due to the challenge made to the entire advertisement by a handful of applicants, the filling up of more than 4,000 vacancies have been stalled for almost four years. General contentions were raised as to the excess of the limit prescribed for reservation and the backlog vacancies having not been determined. In fact, the challenge is made by the various applicants who are entitled to be considered only to a specific subject/post. The reservation roster is prepared University-wise and subject-wise and in that circumstance an advertisement ought to be challenged