Every public functionary must act responsibly, fairly, objectively and with maximum possible transparency;Bihar High court

 Before parting the Court is tempted to quote para
18 of Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh’s case (supra) –
“18. It cannot be disputed that transparency and
accountability are call of the day. Every public
functionary must act responsibly, fairly, objectively
and with maximum possible transparency, in
consonance with the spirit of the Constitution and
statutory provisions. In the matter of public
employment, to conform with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16, the selection process must be
flawless, open and objective, giving equal opportunity
and equality in the matters of consideration to all
eligible candidates. In case fairness of a selection
process is called in question in a court of law, it is the
authority concerned which has to establish its actions
as strictly satisfying the test of Articles 14 and 16. Any
infraction in the same, leading to breach of the
Constitutional mandate, is bound to lead to invalidity
of the entire selection process. It is not the question of
consideration of the individual candidates and the
comparative rights between two individuals. It is the
question of inspiring confidence of the people in the
process adopted, by making it transparent to the
maximum and flawless. In this case the respondents
and particularly the Selection Committee constituted
as per the substituted Section 57 of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976 have failed to do so.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19620 of 2014

 Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh 
Versus
 The State of Bihar 
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

Date: 10.12-2015

By virtue of notification issued by the Registrar,
Magadh University, Bodh Gaya dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure-8) the
names of persons indicated therein have been appointed as
Principals of constituent colleges under Magadh University.
2. The petitioners, who are teachers working under the
University under various capacity, have a grievance since the entire
selection process as well as the selection is vitiated from the very
threshold of advertisement.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the selection so
made of the persons, who are respondents, reeks of nepotism,
favoritism and arbitrariness. The exercise has been done by
hoodwinking the law, if not dragging even the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the controversy. Name of Apex Court was used in the
advertisement with the object of warding off any scrutiny of the
action under challenge including judicial kind.
4. A rather detailed hearing was carried out and after
perusing the materials on records, this Court is constrained to
observe from an old saying that a leopard never changes its spot nor
do white-collared criminals, who are masquerading as
‘educationists’ in the Magadh University.Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
4/48
5. The facts and materials, which will be dealt with in
the subsequent part of the order, shall speak for itself.
6. The Court also expresses its anguish on the facts
that thrice appointment of Principals have been made in the Magadh
University and every time the Court has had to come down very
heavily. This certifies the position that the people at the helms of
affairs have had no respect for law and they were hell-bent on doing
what they wanted to do and achieve what they wanted to achieve
without caring for law or the Courts.
7. In addition to Annexure-8, the petitioners also want
quashing of Annexure- 10, dated 6.3.2013 by which three other
persons have also been appointed against future vacancies. Even this
notification, therefore, is under challenge.
8. Over and above the two Annexures above, the
communication issued from the Governor’s Secretariat under the
signature of the Principal Secretary to His Excellency dated
21.10.2014 (Annexure- 21) has also been challenged and its
quashing is sought in the present writ application.
9. At the very outset, the learned senior counsel
representing the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to
Annexure- 1, which is recruitment notice dated 4.5.2012 and was
supposedly published in a local newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 8.5.2012. Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
5/48
10. The advertisement fixed the cut-off date as
20.5.2012 i.e. to give an opening or a window of only 12 days to
apply to the candidates.
11. The Court also would like to quote a part of the
advertisement which reads as under:
 “In the light of legal advice from Additional
Solicitor General of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
and in the light of judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India,, applications are invited from eligible
candidates for the vacant sanctioned posts of
Principals under Magadh University Service in the
prescribed format. The application must be
accompanied with a crossed DD of Rs.2000/- (For
SC/ST Rs.1000/-) only in favour of Registrar,
Magadh University, Bodhgaya payable at Bodhgaya.
 Application must reach to the office of the
Registrar, Magadh University, Bodhgaya or before
20.5.2012 by registered post only.”
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues
that the very foundation of the advertisement is a fraud and an effort
has been made to ward off, if not scare, persons away from any kind
of close scrutiny to the background under which the said recruitment
of 12 Principals was shown to be made.
13. The accepted position on behalf of the University
and the private respondents is that there was no judgment of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
6/48
Hon’ble Supreme Court based on which the advertisement contained
in Annexure- 1 was issued. So far as the advice of the Additional
Solicitor General is concerned that advice had been given with
regard to yet another appointment earlier made by the same personas
in which not only the Hon’ble High Court quashed those
appointments but even the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision
of the learned Single Judge. The decision of the learned Single
Judge is the case of Dr Bimal Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar,
reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 1134.
14. The argument is that if the foundation of the
advertisement itself is based on this kind of misleading and
fraudulent misrepresentation then it can be well gauzed as to what
the intent and object behind such selection was.
15. Further argument with regard to the advertisement
in question is that the advertisement has not been issued even
otherwise in accordance with the statute dated 30.6.2008.
16. The advertisement was a localized advertisement
and not in any National newspaper to give widest of publicity for
every eligible person to apply and participate. The advertisement
was also issued against the State Government moratorium at the
relevant time on the issue of roster clearance. The advertisement
was without approval of the Hon’ble Chancellor. In support of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
7/48
above contentions, heavy reliance is placed on the case of Dr Bimal
Prasad Singh (supra) where learned Single Judge after dealing with
various statutory and legal requirements has laid down as to the
manner in which the process of selection for appointment on the
post of Principal is supposed to be initiated.
17. Court’s attention was drawn to paragraph 15 of Dr
Bimal Prasad Singh’s case and what the learned Single Judge had to
say in paragraph 15:
“ 15. One important aspect of the matter needs to
be clarified separately. As noticed above the Selection
Committee constituted by legislation as per the new
Section 57 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976
has stepped into the shoes of Bihar State
(Constituent) Colleges Service Commission which in
turn was to function as a Commission for the
University services on the lines of the State Public
Service Commission contemplated under Article 320
of the Constitution. Thus, the newly created Selection
Committee is to perform statutory functions in
respect of appointments to be made in University on
the lines of the Commission. This function of the
Selection Committee is independent and not under
control of the University, or any other authority
under the law. Therefore, the moment vacancies of
the post of teachers and officers of the University are
identified and notified, the same has to be treated by
the Selection Committee as requisition and then it is
required to initiate the process for filling up of those Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
8/48
vacancies, by getting advertisement published on all
India basis inviting applications from all eligible
candidates for their consideration, inconformity with
the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The moment an advertisement is published, and till
the final merit list is prepared, and final
recommendation is made by the Selection Committee
to the University, the University officials, particularly
the Vice Chancellor of the University, has no
individual role to play in the process, though he may
be ex-officio Chairman of the Committee. All
decisions, at all stages, in the process of such
selection, has to be of the Committee itself and any
delegation of power by the Committee to the Vice
Chancellor, if at all made, may only amount to
abdicating its constitutional functions by the
Committee. In the process of selection the Committee
is required to receive applications, scrutinize the
same, hold tests or evaluations, hold interview,
prepare a final combined merit list of all candidates
finally found eligible for appointment, prepare the
panel of general category candidates in the light of
the vacancies notified for recommendation of their
appointment, prepare panels of candidates of each
reserved category from the merit list for
recommendation of their names for their
appointment under the reserved categories and
prepare waiting list of candidates of different
categories, if required. The petitioners have pointed
out defects and errors committed by the Committee in
the process of selection and preparation of the final
panel in this case and apparent anomaly in award of Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
9/48
marks in interview to the candidates. Therefore, onus
lay on the respondents to satisfy this Court that at
each and every stage the Committee had taken steps
for final recommendation of the names to the
University for appointments strictly as required in
law, and no errors, mistakes or lapses were
committed by it. In view of the Constitutional
mandate under Articles 14 and 16, the correctness of
the procedure adopted and the steps taken by the
Selection Committee had to be established by the
respondents themselves.”
If what has been opined by learned Single Judge as to the manner in
which the Selection Committee was required to be constituted and
function, then the same has not been adhered to even in the present
case. Selection and appointments made in violation of the laid down
law makes it illegal and deserves to be set aside.
18. The Court also gave a very detailed guidelines in
para 19 :
“19. In the circumstances, this Court has no
option but to quash the entire selection process held
by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement, as
contained in Annexure-1, and the subsequent steps
taken by the respondents including the preparation of
panel and appointment of the respondents as regular
principals of the respective constituent colleges and
direct the respondents to initiate a fresh process of
selection of candidates for appointment on the vacant
post of principals of the constituent colleges in the Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
10/48
University on regular basis. Accordingly this Court
does that and directs the Selection Committee to
proceed afresh in the following manner:-
(A) (i) The advertisement for filling up post of
principals of constituent colleges under the
University must be published within one month from
today.
(ii) The advertisement must include all the
sanctioned vacant posts of principals of the
constituent colleges of the University as available on
the date of advertisement which shall also include the
posts held by the respondents.
(iii) It shall be mentioned in the advertisement
that as per the Statute, the panel, finally prepared
and published by the Selection Committee, shall be
valid for one year.
(iv) It may be also mentioned in the
advertisement that the vacancies which may accrue
during the period of the validity of the panel may be
filled up from the panel of respective category for
which the vacancy may be earmarked.
(v) The details of the categories of any
anticipated vacancy likely to arise during the period
of validity of the panel shall also be mentioned in the
advertisement.
(vi) It shall also be mentioned in the
advertisement that after preparing the panel of
general category candidates from combined merit list,
separate panel of reserved category candidates, as per
the reservation policy of the Government, by applying
the roster to the 44 posts of principals of the 44
constituent colleges of the University, shall also be Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
11/48
prepared and finalized, even though the vacancies of
particular category may not have already become
available on the date of advertisement. Therefore
candidates of all the categories shall be invited to
apply for inclusion of their names in the respective
panels, although vacancies of the particular category
may not be already available.
(vii) In the advertisement an exhaustive list of
standard/recognized journals, for the purposes of
assessment of marks under the head of
publication/research papers, shall be given, which
the Selection Committee intends to take into
consideration in the matter.
(viii) The Selection committee may also
prescribe a self assessment chart for candidates to
assess their marks themselves, under the head of
academic achievement and publication, in terms of
Clause 13 of the Statute dated 30.6.2008, and may
require the candidates to submit the same along with
their application forms, with other details and
supporting documents, for consideration by the
Selection Committee. The candidates may also be
required to submit an affidavit that their publication
or research papers are not a part of either their
M.Phil or Ph.D thesis.
(B) The Selection Committee shall allow a
reasonable time to the applicants to submit their
application forms. The same shall be scrutinized, in
the light of the self assessment chart, if submitted,
and a detail final chart of marks allotted to each
applicant under the head of academic achievements
and under the head of publication/research shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
12/48
prepared and signed by all the members of the
Selection Committee and shall be put on the web-site
of the University for the knowledge of the applicants
and a reasonable time shall be allowed for the
individual applicants to get the marks allotted cross
checked in their presence, if they so desire.
(C) Thereafter the date of interview shall be
fixed and notified on the web-site of the University as
well as in the manner prescribed, for the knowledge
of the respective candidates for their appearance on
the dates fixed for respective candidates.
(D) For the purposes of transparency and to
ward off any public suspicion of nepotism and
extraneous consideration weighing with the Selection
Committee, the interview of all the candidates shall
be video-recorded in full and the marks shall be
awarded to the candidates by the members of the
Selection Committee then and there. A notice shall be
put on the notice board on the date of interview that,
if requested in writing, any individual candidate shall
be supplied with the information with regard to
average of the total marks awarded to him in
interview in writing and on the same day he is
interviewed, which shall be supplied the same day
upon such request. The C.D. of video recording, in
original, shall be preserved till the validity of the
panel, or till the final conclusion of any dispute, in
connection with the selection process, which ever
may be later.
(E) On completion of the interview, a
consolidated merit list of all the candidates shall be
prepared within two weeks of the last date of Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
13/48
interview and shall be signed by all the members of
the Selection Committee and put on website of the
University. Within further two weeks thereafter,
panel of general category candidates, as well as of
reserved categories shall be prepared and forwarded
to the University, under the signature of all the
members of the Selection Committee, for proceeding
with issue of appointment letters.
(F)The entire process must be completed with
issue of appointment letters by the University within
six months from today.
(G) The Selection Committee may include
such other stipulation in the advertisement and may
take such other step in the selection process as it may
deem fit and proper for the purpose of transparency
of the process and to instill confidence in the
candidates in respect of fairness in action on their
part.
(H) The Selection Committee shall be at liberty
to approach this Court if they find any difficulty in
implementing any of the directions, as issued by this
Court above, for necessary modification or further
direction.
(I) The respondents may notify the Selection
Committee in accordance with law for the purpose,
by nominating new members as per its constitution, if
necessary, to start the process of selection after
advertisement.”
19. It is the case of the petitioners that the entire
present exercise has been done in gross disregard to the High Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
14/48
Court’s directive by cocking a snook at it. There is substance in the
submission as the facts do support it. The constitution of the
Selection Committee has been attacked on many grounds. Large
number of irregularities has been committed by the erstwhile Vice
Chancellor, namely, Mr Arun Kumar. Experts were picked up by
the Vice Chancellor without approval of the Academic Council. The
senior most head of the Department or the senior most Principal
under the University was required to be part of the Committee but
such requirement was blatantly ignored and a rank junior, namely,
Srikant Sharma was included in the committee, who seems to be
favorite of Prof. Arun Kumar, the then Vice Chancellor because his
name also figured in other controversies with regard to other
appointments which included the challenge made in the case of Dr
Bimal Prasad Singh(supra) as well as yet another appointment,
which was struck down by the High Court by a learned Single
Judge, which was the case of Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha and another vs.
State of Bihar and others i.e. CWJC No.9167 of 2012, decided on
12.9.2014.
20. Another omission pointed out at the bar on behalf
of the petitioners is that there was no Government nominee on the
Selection Committee and no effort was also made to have one.
Mere sham kind of effort was made but there was no serious desire Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
15/48
to have a nominee.
21. Some other irregularities committed on behalf of
the Selection Committee have also been pointed out by the counsel
on behalf of the petitioners. The Vice Chancellor abstains in the
morning session/ meeting of the Committee on the ground that his
Samdhin (co-sister) was a candidate, but he participated in the
second half when the final deliberation for selection and
recommendation was done where the said candidate was also a
beneficiary.
22. The statutory requirement of the Selection
Committee to supervise the entire process of selection i.e. from the
advertisement till final recommendation was not done by the
Committee. In fact, the Committee was not kept in the loop and
their participation on need base and very selectively was allowed.
23. The advertisement contained in Annexure- 1 in
fact, was issued even prior to the constitution of the Committee.
The Selection Committee in fact did not even carry out the scrutiny
of the applications and tabulation of the candidates. This exercise
was done by what is known as Promotion Cell directly under the
control of the Vice Chancellor. This also indicates a mindset as to
how the selection process was sought to be controlled and
manipulated to a particular goal.Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
16/48
24. No combined merit list was published. Only the
final list of recommendations under various categories was issued.
There is some jugglery even in the recommendations which are
evident from the record. The appointment letters were backdated for
the reason that the Vice Chancellor was under notice and he was
racing against time as he would have been removed any day as the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was awaited on the issue of
appointment of Vice Chancellors in various Universities and he was
only holding the post temporarily as a stopgap arrangement. The
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court came on 18.3.2013, by virtue of
which the officiating Vice Chancellor, namely, Mr Arun Kumar was
stopped from functioning. Even the so-called recommendation of
the Selection Committee was not adhered to. The Vice Chancellor
changed the sequence in the final notification.
25. Another glaring fact pointed out from Annexure- 8
dated 16.1.2013 is that the said notification granted 60 days time to
join but the joining was required to be accepted only if the candidate
had the necessary no objection certificate and joining letters. What
is of significance is that no letter of appointment was produced by
any candidate at the time of joining nor the same has been produced
even during the course of hearing as it is not in existence, a fact no
longer in dispute. In fact, a closer scrutiny of the document would Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
17/48
show that the no objection certificate or the relieving certificates
were backdated or non existent.
26. Another fact pointed out is that the
recommendation or appointment on the post of Principals was
supposed to be approved by the Syndicate. The meeting of the
Syndicate held on 18.2.2013 did not have in its agenda the question
of approval of the recommendation for such appointments.
Subsequently a document has been created but it seems to have been
done later to cover up the illegality.
27. While this exercise was going on and such blatant
and glaring, if not daring, acts were being committed in matter of
selection and appointments of Principals, complaints were received
even at the level of the Hon’ble Chancellor. An enquiry was
ordered first by the Divisional Commission- cum- officiating Vice
Chancellor into the issue since the previous Vice Chancellor, Mr
Arun Kumar, ceased to be a Vice Chancellor after the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered on 18.3.2013. The detailed report
of the Divisional Commissioner is Annexure- 16 to the writ
application. This enquiry was held in response to the letter of the
Hon’ble Chancellor dated 30.4.2013. A reading of the said report of
the Divisional Commissioner, in fact, supports most of the
submissions made at the bar with regard to the manner in which Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
18/48
such selection of Principals had been made. In fact, some more
glaring instances have been pointed out in the said report. The
finding in the report was that a detailed enquiry either by Vigilance
or a Specialized Committee is surely required to establish the guilt
of such persons, who were so blatant in their conduct.
28. Another fact of significance is that the
subsequently appointed Vice Chancellor’s opinion was also sought
by Hon’ble Chancellor. He responded vide letter dated 12.8.2013
addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Hon’ble Chancellor. The
said report is Annexure- 17 to the writ application. This report also
corroborates the previous findings of the Divisional Commissioner.
Not only this, it also points out some more irregularities in the
manner in which the entire selection of Principals had been made.
He also sought direction as to what was required to be done with
regard to the fate of the selected candidates.
29. With so many inputs and materials pouring into
the Chancellor’s Secretariat, the Joint Secretary to the Governor’s
Secretariat, Bihar issued a notification dated 14.8.2013. The
Hon’ble Chancellor was prima facie satisfied that an enquiry was
required to be conducted on the issue of appointment of Principals in
Magadh University, by the then Vice Chancellor, therefore, under
the exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 9 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
19/48
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, he requested Sri B.B.Lal, IAS
(Retd.) to inquire into the irregularities on the issue of appointment
of Principals.
30. On the basis of the said notification, Sri B.B.Lal
conducted a very very detailed enquiry and a voluminous report was
presented before the Hon’ble Chancellor. Part of the report is on
record as Annexure- 19. This report was presented on 16.11.2013.
Obviously, perusal and analysis of the report took time and
thereafter the Hon’ble Chancellor was pleased to direct issuance of a
letter dated 18.3.2014 (Annexure- 20). The Hon’ble Chancellor
stopped all the Principals from performing their duty since their
appointment was stayed and they were ordered to be reverted back
to their parent organization till appropriate show causes and
response was received and a final decision was taken on the issue.
31. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners
thereafter submits that on a begotten kind of advice given to His
Excellency, an order dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure- 21) was issued.
Strangely, the previous order dated 18.3.2014 i.e. Annexure- 20 was
withdrawn. The submission of the learned senior counsel
representing the petitioners is that the so- called legal advice given
to the Hon’ble chancellor was a blatantly wrong legal advice,
obviously managed by the vested interest to overcome the rigors of Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
20/48
Annexure-20. To support such an argument, he relied on a decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Hitendra Singh
v. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 369. This
decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 4th April,
2014. This decision is of significance because the provisions, which
were dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court are para materia to
Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The detailed
opinion of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is of significance to this
case emerges from reading of paragraphs 18,19, 20, 21, 22 and 23,
which run as under:
“18. Section 11 reads as under:
“11: Chancellor to cause inspection and inquiry on
various matters:
(1) The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an
inspection to be made, by such person or persons or
body of persons, as he may direct, of any University,
its buildings, farms, laboratories, libraries, museums,
workshops and equipment of any college, institution
or hostel maintained, administered or recognised by
the University and of the teaching and other work
conducted by or on behalf of the University or under
its auspices of and of the conduct of examinations or
other functions of the University, and to cause an
inquiry to be made in like manner regarding any
matter connected with the administration or finances
of the University.
(2) The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
21/48
notice to the University of his intention to cause an
inspection or inquiry to be made, and the University
shall be entitled to appoint a representative, who all
have the right to be present and to be heard at the
inspection or inquiry.
(3) After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to
be made, the Chancellor may address the ViceChancellor
on the result of such inspection or inquiry
and the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to the
Executive Council the views of the Chancellor and
call upon the Executive Council to communicate to
the Chancellor through him its opinion thereon
within such time as may have been specified by the
Chancellor. If the Executive Council communicates,
its opinion within the specified time limit, after taking
into consideration that opinion, or where the
Executive Council fails to communicate its opinion in
time, after the specified time limit is over, the
Chancellor may proceed and advise the Executive
Council upon the action to be taken by it, a fix a
time-limit for taking such action.
(4) The Executive Council shall, within the time limit
so fixed, report to the Chancellor through the ViceChancellor
the action which has been taken or is
proposed to be taken on the advice tendered by him.
(5) The Chancellor may, where action has not been
taken by the Executive Council to his satisfaction
within in the time limit fixed, and after considering
any explanation furnished or representation made by
the Executive Council, issue such direction, as the
Chancellor may think fit, and the Executive Council
and other authority concerned shall comply with such Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
22/48
directions.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
preceding sub-section if at any time the Chancellor is
of the opinion that in any matter the affairs of the
University are not managed in furtherance of the
objects of the University or in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the statutes and Regulation
or that special measures are desirable to maintain the
standards of University teaching, examinations,
research, extension education, administration or
finances, the Chancellor may indicate to the
Executive Council through the Vice-Chancellor any
matter in regard to which he desires an explanation
and call upon the Executive Council to offer such
explanation within such time as may be specified by
him. If the Executive Council fails to offer any
explanation within the time specified or offers an
explanation which, in the opinion of the Chancellor is
not satisfactory, the Chancellor may issue such
directions as appear to him to be necessary, and the
Executive Council and other authority concerned
shall comply with such directions.
(7) The Executive Council shall furnish such
information relating to the administration and
finances of the University as the Chancellor may from
time to time require.
(8) The Executive Council shall furnish to the State
Government such returns or other information with
respect to the property or activities of the University as
the State Government may from time to time require“.
(emphasis supplied)
19. A careful reading of the above would leave no Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
23/48
manner of doubt that the Chancellor is vested with
the power to cause an inspection to be made by such
person or persons as he may direct of any University,
its building, farms, laboratories, libraries etc. or of
hostels administered and recognised by the University
or of the teaching or other workshops conducted on
behalf of the University or any conduct of
examinations or other functions of the University.
The inspection so directed is, however, distinct from
the inquiry which the Chancellor may direct
regarding any matter connected with the
administration or finance of the University. The
expression „administration or finance‟ of the
University is in our opinion, wide enough to include
an inquiry into any matter that falls under Section
6(x) (supra). (emphasis mine) If creation of teaching,
research and education posts required by the
University is one of the functions of the University
and if appointment of suitable persons against such
posts is also one of such functions, there is no reason
why the power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry
under Section 11(1) should not extend to any process
leading to such appointments. The term
„administration of the University‟ appearing in subSection
1 of Section 11 would, in our opinion, include
every such activity as is relatable to the functions of
the University, under Section 6. Selection of persons
suitable for appointment and appointments of such
persons would logically fall within the expression
“administration of the University” within the
meaning of Section 11(1) of the Act. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that the inquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
24/48
directed by the Chancellor into the illegalities and
irregularities of the selection process culminating in
the appointment of Senior and Junior Research
Assistants was legally permissible. The power vested
in the Chancellor under Section 11 to direct an
inspection or an inquiry into matters referred to in the
said provision is very broad and vests the Chancellor
with the authority to direct an inspection or an
inquiry whenever warranted in the facts and
circumstances in a given case.
20. We may also refer to Section 15 of the Act
whereunder the Governor of Maharashtra is exofficio
Head of each of the Universities who shall,
when present, preside at any convocation of the
University. Section 15 reads:
15. Chancellor (1) The Governor of Maharashtra,
shall be the Chancellor of each of the Universities.
(2) The Chancellor shall, by virtue of his office, be
the head of the University and shall, when present,
preside at any convocation of the University.
(3) The Chancellor may call for his information any
papers relating to the administration of the affairs of
the University and such requisition shall be complied
with by the University.
(4) Every proposal to confer any honorary degree
shall be subject to confirmation by the Chancellor.
(5)The Chancellor may, by order in writing, annul
any proceeding of any officer or authority of the
University, which is not in conformity with this Act,
the Statutes or the Regulations, or which is
prejudicial to the interest of the University:
Provided that, before making any such order, he Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
25/48
shall call upon the officer or authority to show cause
why such an order should not be made, and if any
cause is shown within the time specified by him in this
behalf, he shall consider the same.
(6) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers
and perform such other duties as are laid down by
this Act.” (emphasis supplied)
21. A plain reading of the above shows that apart
from being the ex officio Head of the University, the
statute specifically confers upon the Chancellor the
power to call for his information any paper relating to
the administration of the affairs of the University and
upon such request the University is bound to comply
with the same. Sub-section (5) vests the chancellor
with the power to annul any proceeding of any officer
or authority if the same is not in conformity with the
provisions of the Act, the statutes or the Regulations
or which is prejudicial to the interest of the
University. A conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 15,
in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that the
Chancellor exercises ample powers in regard to the
affairs of the University and in particular in regard to
the affairs of the administration of the University.
The power to direct an inquiry into any matter
concerning the administration of the University is
only one of the facets of power vested in the
Chancellor. The exercise of any such power is not
subject to any limitation or impediment
understandably because the power is vested in a high
constitutional functionary who is expected to exercise
the same only when such exercise becomes necessary Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
26/48
to correct aberrations and streamline administration
so as to maintain the purity of the procedures and
process undertaken by the University in all spheres
dealt with by it. The power to direct an inquiry is
meant to kick-start corrective and remedial measures
and steps needed to improve the functioning of the
University as much as to correct any illegal or
improper activity in the smooth running of the
administration of the University. As a father figure
holding a high constitutional office, the Chancellor is
to be the guiding spirit for the Universities to follow a
path of rectitude in every matter whether it concerns
the administration or the finances of the University or
touches the teaching and other activities that are
undertaken by it. The legislature, it is obvious, has
considered the conferment of such powers to be
essential to prevent indiscipline, root out corruption,
prevent chaos or deadlock in the administration of the
University or any office or establishment under it that
may tend to shake its credibility among those who
deal with the institution. (emphasis mine)
22. The Chancellor had, in the case at hand, directed
an inquiry into the illegalities and irregularities in the
selection and appointment process in the light of
widespread resentment against the same as is evident
from the fact that three writ petitions had been filed in
the High Court challenging the selection and the
appointment process. Two of the writ petitions had
been disposed of as noticed earlier no sooner Justice
Dhabe Committee was constituted by the Chancellor
for holding a detailed inquiry into the allegations.
The petitioners were not only aware of the fact about Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
27/48
the pending writ proceedings but also about the
constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee. As a matter
of fact with the disposal of Writ Petitions No.4771 of
2006 and 905 of 2006 the petitioner had known that
Justice Dhabe Committee will eventually determine
whether or not their selection and appointment was
proper. Justice Dhabe Committee had even issued
notices to the petitioners who had in turn responded
to the same. The constitution of Justice Dhabe
Committee was, despite all this, never questioned by
the petitioners. On the contrary the petitioners merrily
participated in the proceedings and took a chance to
obtain a favourable verdict from it. Having failed to
do so, they turned around to challenge not only the
findings recorded by the Committee but even the
authority of the Chancellor to set up such a
Committee. While the findings recorded by the
Inquiry Committee could be assailed, the challenge to
the setting up of the Committee was clearly untenable
not only because there was no merit in that
contention but also because having taken a chance to
obtain a favourable verdict the petitioners could not
turn around to assail the constitution of the
Committee itself. Question 1 is accordingly answered
in the negative. (emphasis mine)
Reg. Question (ii)
23. The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged
Justice Dhabe Committee Report before the High
Court on the ground that principles of natural justice
had not been complied with by the Committee. The
High Court has noted and in our opinion rightly so
that Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices to Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
28/48
each one of the petitioners asking for their
explanation which the petitioners had submitted. The
High Court noted that the inquiry proceedings before
Justice Dhabe had continued for nearly three years
during which period the petitioners had made no
grievance either before the Committee or before any
other forum regarding non-compliance with the
principles of natural justice. There is nothing on
record to suggest that any point relevant to the
controversy was not considered by Justice Dhabe
Committee or that there was any impediment in their
offering an effective defence before the Committee.
The petitioners had on the contrary candidly admitted
in the writ petition itself that upon receipt of notices
from the Committee they had appeared and filed their
respective affidavits before the Committee. Some of
the petitioners had even furnished some additional
information which was summoned from them. The
Committee had, it is evident, associated the petitioners
with the proceedings by inviting them to appear and
participate in the same, heard the petitioners and
considered their version. There is neither an
allegation nor any material to suggest that there was
any reluctance or refusal on the part of the
Committee to entertain any material which the
petitioner intended to place in their defence or to
summon any record from any other quarter relevant
to the questions being examined by the Committee.
24. The argument that the petitioners did not know as
to what the complaint against them was has been
rejected by the High Court and quite rightly so. Once
the petitioners were informed about the setting up of Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
29/48
the Committee and invited to participate in the same
and once they had appeared before the Committee
and filed their affidavits it is difficult to appreciate the
argument that the petitioners did so without knowing
as to why was the Committee set up and what was the
inquiry all about. Assuming that any of the petitioners
did not fully comprehend the nature of allegations
being inquired into by the Committee or the purpose
of the inquiry nothing prevented the petitioners from
taking suitable steps at the appropriate stage
assuming that they were so naïve as to simply appear
before the Committee without being aware of the
purpose for which they were invited. They could
indeed approach the Committee to secure the relevant
information to fully acquaint themselves about the
on-going process and the nature of the defences that
was open to them.
25. Having remained content with their participation
in the inquiry proceedings for nearly three years and
having made no grievance at all against the
procedure adopted by the Committee in dealing with
the subject till the writ petitions challenging the
termination orders were filed, we see no merit in the
specious contention that principles of natural justice
were violated by the Committee especially when no
prejudice is demonstrably caused to the petitioners on
account of the procedure which the Committee
followed in concluding the enquiry proceedings.
Question No.2 is also in that view answered in the
negative.”Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
30/48
The above mentioned decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court renders a
decisive opinion with regard to power of the Hon’ble chancellor
which he can exercise in such circumstances and it has been held to
be paramount. Obviously the legal opinion given to the Hon’ble
Chancellor, which formed the basis for issuance of Annexure- 21
was in the teeth of Hon’ble Apex Court’s pronouncement. The legal
advice which led to withdrawal of the previous order of stay of the
appointments contained in Annexure- 20 dated 18.3.2014, was an
illegal advice which compelled the Hon’ble Chancellor to withdraw
his otherwise correct opinion reflected in Annexure- 20. The
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Hitendra
Singh (supra) does make Annexure- 21 vulnerable and is fit to be
quashed. The constitution of Shri B.B.Lal Committee was a legally
justified decision of the Hon’ble Chancellor. If it is so the report of
Shri B.B.Lal is also a valid report on which action as per Annexure-
20 was well occasioned. It can also be relied upon and is a valid
document.
32. Another letter of communication is of significance
which has been placed before this Court, is a letter of the present
Vice Chancellor of the Magadh University dated 17.6.2014, which
has been annexed as Annexure- 22 to the supplementary affidavit of
the petitioners and is addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
31/48
Chancellor. The present Vice Chancellor also was of the opinion
that looking at the large scale irregularities as well as impropriety
with regard to the conduct of the then Vice Chancellor, Mr Arun
Kumar, a proper vigilance enquiry was required. The B.B. Lal
Committee having found gross violations with supporting evidence
and materials needed to fix responsibility not only on the then Vice
Chancellor but such persons involved in the machination.
33. Another submission of the petitioners is of
significance. On 5.5.2012, the then Vice Chancellor wrote a letter to
the Hon’ble Chancellor seeking permission to initiate the process of
advertisement and selection. The Hon’ble Chancellor responds on
26.5.2012 allowing such an exercise, which was received by the
Vice Chancellor on 29.5.2012 but before all this on 4.5.2012 itself,
the advertisement contained in Annexure- 1 was already issued by
the University. In other words, the approval of the Hon’ble
Chancellor was a sham exercise done as an afterthought by the then
Vice Chancellor. This aspect of the matter is also evident from
reading of Annexure- 32, which is volume 2 of the B.B.Lal Report,
which would be evident from findings emerging from page 476 to
477. It is a serious omission on the part of the then Vice Chancellor
in this regard as he was playing games even with the High office of
Chancellor.Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
32/48
34. Vide Annexure- 2, the so-called Selection
Committee was constituted on 3.9.2012 but by that time many an
exercise had already been done without the participation of the
Selection Committee, therefore, as per the law laid down in the
decision of Dr Bimal Prasad Singh (supra), especially paragraph 15,
the entire process stands vitiated.
35. Another serious omission or violation of law is
that the Selection Committee was not constituted from the
recommendation made by the Academic Council. Clause 7 of the
Statute lays down as to how a Selection Committee is to be
constituted. What is of significance is that no meeting of the
Academic Council was held prior to 3.9.2012 then how come the socalled
Selection Committee was constituted on 3.9.2012. In fact, it
is evident from the material on page 255-256 of the writ application
that the meeting of the Academic Council was held on 24.9.2012 to
approve the panel. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners
also points out that one Dr Dalbir Singh, who happened to be a
member of the Academic Council, who participated in approving the
names of the experts, subsequently becomes an appointee himself
under so- called minority quota, which does not exist and is another
controversy raised against his selection.
36. Same is the position with regard to the meeting of Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
33/48
the Syndicate held on 26.6.2012. In that meeting one Dr Usha Sinha
participated for approval of panel of experts, subsequently she
herself became an appointee.
37. One Prof Sona J. Minz was shown to be one of the
experts and was part of the Selection Committee sent his regret.
Thereafter, one Narendra Kumar replaced him but by what exercise
and decision is not evident or clear from the entire records and
pleadings. With regard to inclusion of one Srikant Sharma, who is
not the senior most Principal or the HOD but seems to be the
favorite because his inclusion has also been commented upon in a
previous proceeding and decision of a learned Single Judge in the
case of Dr Arun Kumar Sinha, which is CWJC No.9167 of 2012.
The Court would like to reproduce what the learned Single Judge
had to say about Srikant Sharma :
“81. One of the point that has been taken by the
petitioner constitution of Selection Committee is also
bad on the ground that as per Section 57(1)(5) of the
University Act one of the member should be head of
department of the discipline concerned and Clause
7(i)(b) of the Statute provides that senior most head
of the Department/senior most Principal of
constituent college of concerned University in the
rank of University Professor should be one of the
member of the Selection Committee.
82. In the present case objection has been raised
that Srikant Sharma who was nominated by the Vice-Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
34/48
Chancellor as member of the Selection Committee
was /is not the senior most Principal or the head of
the department as there were/are large number of
Principals who were/are senior to him but ignoring
the seniority Srikant Sharma was nominated on
account of his nearness with Dr Arun Kumar, VcieChancellor.
As counsel for the petitioner submits that
Dr. S.N. Singh, Dr. Asha Singh, Principal of Arvind
Mahila College, Patna, Dr. Haridwar Singh,
Principal of A.N. College, Patna, Dr. Madan Murari,
Principal of A.N.S. College, Barh, Dr. Baban Singh,
Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna and Dr. Vishundeo
Vidyarthi are senior to Sri Kant Sharma but a very
much junior person was nominated as member of the
Selection Committee. The University has not disputed
the seniority of Principal claimed by the petitioner
but has furnished explanation for selection of
Srikant Sharma by filing Annexure S/8 from which it
appears that Registrar vide letter/note sheet dated
4.7.2011 has informed the Vice-Chancellor that Dr.
S.N. Singh is the senior most Principal but charges
from Raj Bhawan are pending against him. Mrs.
Asha Singh has taken leave to go outside and Dr.
Haridwar Singh showed his inability to participate in
the Selection Committee due to his preoccupied
engagement in NAAC team and that was the reason,
as Sri Kant Sharma had given his consent, request
was made to consider him to be nominated as one of
the expert of Selection Committee but the said note
sheet Annexure S/8 has conspicuously failed to
explain why other persons, namely, Dr. Madan
Murari, Principal of A.N.S. College, Barh, Dr. Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
35/48
Baban Singh, Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna and
Dr. Vishundeo Vidyarthi were not nominated though
from record it is apparent, Dr. Madan Murari was
appointed in the year 1988, Dr. Baban Singh and
Vishundeo Vidyarthi were appointed on 21.4.1994
whereas Sri Kant Sharma was made Principal with
effect from 25.4.1994 vide letter no.859/GIA dated
13.12.1997 (Annexure-17 ).
83. In view of preposition of law the Selection
Committee was to be constituted in the manner
prescribed in terms of statutory provisions and on
that manner alone. There should not have been
deviation from the manner prescribed under the
University Act and Statute. There is no explanation
from the side of the University or have not brought
any material to suggest as to why names of other
persons above him were ignored. This Court is of the
view that Srikant Sharma being not senior most
Principal was wrongly nominated as member of
Selection Committee and this Court comes to a
conclusion that instead of appointing Srikant
Sharma any senior most person above him should
have been nominated. On this ground alone
constitution of Selection Committee is not in
consonance with the provisions of the University Act
and Statute framed therein.” (emphasis mine)
38. To sum up, therefore, the constitution of the
Selection Committee was per se illegal, manipulated and prepared
by the then Vice Chancellor with the object of selecting people Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
36/48
whose names were predetermined and the sham of an exercise was
carried out.
39. There is also material to show that the Selection
Committee met for the first time on 21.12.2012, which is on the date
of the interview. If this is so, then the Selection Committee met
only with the object of putting its seal of approval to the already
identified beneficiaries.
40. Even if for the sake of argument it is said that the
Selection Committee did the final selection, they did not provide any
merit list. They made recommendations category-wise which
smacks of some kind of a fixed match and had been unheard of. The
sanctity of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee
also was not maintained by the Vice Chancellor. Annexure- 8 at
page 77 would reflect that this recommendation was also tampered
with by the Vice Chancellor and positions altered.
41. It is also one of those cases that no joining letter
surfaced till date and based on the notification itself joining of the
appointed candidates were accepted, who did not even bother to
produce any no objection certificate or relieving letter. Their joining
was accepted and subsequently they were permitted to obtain ante
dated NOC or relieving letter. In fact, two candidates continued to
work as teachers in their respective colleges for a month or so after Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
37/48
their joining was accepted on the post of Principals. In other words,
their joining was ante dated which itself creates doubt as to when
and how such joining was allowed or made. This also to some extent
supports the allegation that the notification is backdated, if not the
joining. Therefore, no appointment letters came to be issued for
such position ever.
42. At page 258 of the writ application, the name of
Narendra Kumar was shown as one of the Members of the Selection
Committee but surprisingly yet another list of Selection Committee
surfaced at page 735, which is Annexure- H to the counter affidavit
of respondent no.11 in which his name is missing, yet he has been
shown to have participated in the selection process as would be
evident from the notification contained at page 68.
43. All these facts and glaring omissions and
violations have been dealt with in detail in B.B.Lal Committee’s
report, which cannot be ignored or wished away and is valid
document.
44. Another aspect which has been pointed out before
this Court on the basis of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, reported in
2010 (2) SCC 637, especially paragraph 7, 8 and 24 that the
Selection Committee cannot make recommendations for future Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
38/48
vacancies. The notification Annexure- 10 also under challenge
would show that certain names have been recommended against
future vacancies, which also is a serious infirmity in the so- called
selection. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 24 of the said judgment are quoted
herein below:
“7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies
cannot be filled up over and above the number of
vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the
candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a
denial and deprivation of the constitutional right
under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the
Constitution", of those persons who acquired
eligibility for the post in question in accordance with
the statutory rules subsequent to the date of
notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies
over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor
desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to
"improper exercise of power and only in a rare and
exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation,
such a rule can be deviated from and such a
deviation is permissible only after adopting policy
decision based on some rational", otherwise the
exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies
over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of
future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.
8. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court
held as under: (SCC pg.494 paras 14 & 16)
“ 14. ……9. A waiting list prepared in an
examination conducted by the Commission does not
furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
39/48
for the contingency that if any of the selected
candidates does not join then the person from the
waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the
vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme
exigency the Government may as a matter of policy
decision pick up persons in order of merit from the
waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court
that since the vacancies have not been worked out
properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting
list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be
sound. This practice, may result in depriving those
candidates who become eligible for competing for the
vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in
one examination was to operate as an infinite stock
for appointments, there is a danger that the State
Government may resort to the device of not holding
an examination for years together and pick up
candidates from the waiting list as and when
required. The constitutional discipline requires that
this Court should not permit such improper exercise
of power which may result in creating a vested
interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates
of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh
candidates either from the open or even from service.
16. ......Exercise of such power has to be tested on the
touch-stone of reasonableness....It is not a matter of
course that the authority can fill up more posts than
advertised." (Emphasis added)
24. A person whose name appears in the select list
does not acquire any indefeasible right of
appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition
of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by
itself does not amount to selection or create a vested
right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled
up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with
the constitutional mandate. In the instant case, once
13 notified vacancies were filled up, the selection
process came to an end, thus there could be no scope
of any further appointment.”
45. In fact, this kind of illegality was considered even Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
40/48
in the case of Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh (supra) because learned
Single Judge has occasion to notice as under :-
“13. It is settled law that terms of advertisement for
appointment are determining factors for scope and
limitation of consideration of candidates for
appointment. In the case of Suvidya Yadav (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents,
the advertisement specifically contained a stipulation
that the number of posts advertised were subject to
variations. The judgments of the Apex Court in the
case of Prem Singh (supra) and Benny T.D. (supra),
relied upon by other learned counsels for the
respondents, are also of no help to the respondents
as, in very clear terms, it has been held therein that
vacancies becoming available after final
recommendation of the selection body could not be
filled up from the names so recommended. The
respondent University has admitted in its counter
affidavit that the vacancies, which were filled up
beyond the vacancies notified in the advertisement,
had become available after the panel was prepared
and appointments were made by Annexure-5. It is
true that the Statute makes a panel, notified by the
Selection Committee, valid for one year. But that
validity is only for the purposes of appointments in
case of non-joining, unless it is clearly mentioned in
the advertisement itself that the panel prepared on
the basis of the advertisement shall be valid for a
future period and for anticipated vacancies. It is
settled law that a selection process comes to an end
after a panel is finally published and recommended Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
41/48
to the appointing authority for appointments
therefrom against the vacancies advertised. Clearly
no post falling vacant subsequent to the same could
be filled up from the said panel as neither the post
was under consideration in the process of selection
nor was it intended and notified at the initial stage
itself, by making a stipulation in the advertisement
itself for knowledge to all the applicants that the
vacancy position may increase, by the same being
available even subsequent to the selection process
coming to an end. It is true that under certain
circumstances, the vacancies arising after
advertisement, and prior to the selection process
coming to an end, have been allowed by the Courts to
be filled up pursuant to that very selection process.
But the vacancies, which were not available even on
the date of final publication of the panel, have not
been allowed by the Courts to be filled up from that
panel. The reliance of the respondents in this respect
on the stipulation made in the advertisement, to the
effect that the University had the right to
change/cancel the advertisement, is misconceived.
Any change in the advertisement was necessarily to
be notified to the candidates through a corrigendum
issued and published in the same newspaper in which
the original advertisement was published. The
change, by no stretch of imagination, could be a
private affair at the level of the University, without
making it known to the candidates and the
applicants.”Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
42/48
46. Affidavit on behalf of Magadh University accepts
the position emerging from the B.B.Lal report. Paragraph 15 of the
counter affidavit of the University clearly accepts that position. In
other words, the selection and appointment of the private
respondents is a farce and a nullity.
47. Learned senior counsel representing respondent
no.11 put up a valiant fight to defeat the present writ application. At
the out set he submits that since most of these reports are ex parte
they cannot be looked into. The B.B. Lal report also cannot be used
as materials against the respondents in view of the communication
and letter of the Hon’ble Chancellor contained in Annexure- 21.
There is no requirement for an all India publication of the
advertisement inviting applications. The fact that there was a paper
publication is enough. No approval of the Chancellor was needed for
the advertisement.
48. A position is also taken on behalf of the said
respondent that the Selection Committee had to be constituted and
reconstituted because certain infirmities were noticed in the first
selection. There is a denial that there is no government nominee. A
justification is also given for nominating Srikant Sharma as one of
the members etc. etc.
49. Similar supporting kind of submissions has also Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
43/48
been made on behalf of respondents no.9, 12, 13 and 14.
Submission was also made on behalf of respondents no.7, 8, 10, 15,
16 and 18. On behalf of respondents 9, 12, 13 and 14, a plea was
taken that the writ application cannot be maintained if the petitioners
participated and failed. Unfortunately, for these respondents such a
plea was taken even in the case of Dr Bimal Prasad Singh (supra)
and rejected by learned Single Judge.
50. A brave attempt was also made by urging that
appointed respondents had approached the High Court when they
were not being paid their salary by filing CWJC no.18355 of 2013.
A copy of this order dated 22.4.2013 is Annexure- R 14/D, page 667
of the writ. In view of the said decision, it is the stand of the
counsel for such respondents that the present writ application is
barred by constructive res judicata.
51. It is a fallacious kind of submission because
reading of the said order itself would indicate that the decision was
limited to payment of salary alone and no comment has been made
on the correctness or otherwise of such a selection. The Court is
fortified in its opinion in view of what the learned Single Judge has
said, which is as under :
“ The petitioners however do not want anything
more at this stage except their payment of salary for
the period they have remained stationed in Magadh Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
44/48
University after leaving their earlier post.”
52. On the question of merit list the stand taken on
behalf of the respondents is that if there is a combined select list, it
can be safely inferred that there was a merit list. Unfortunately,
there is none and even Sri B.B.Lal has taken note of this position in
his report.
53. Another submission is that a settled position
cannot be unsettled. by the unsuccessful candidates before this Court
and in this regard counsels have tried to rely on certain decisions but
unfortunately in the given facts and what has already been held in
previous litigations such a plea cannot bar the Court from looking
into the controversy when whole selection smacks of nepotism,
arbitrariness and gross violation of statutory, if not judicial
directions and pronouncements.
54. A high sounding submission was made on behalf
of respondents no.8 and 15 that if Section 9 and 57 are read then the
Selection Committee has been given the same status as the Public
Service Commission, therefore, their decision is immune from any
kind of scrutiny by the Hon’ble Chancellor.
55. The submission of the learned senior counsel is
fallacious in view of what the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already
held in the case of Hitendra Singh (supra).Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
45/48
56. With so many illegalities, if not fraud, which has
been played in the very initiation of the advertisement till the final
selection with overbearing evidence and materials of wrong doing
and daredevilry practiced by then Vice Chancellor, Mr Arun Kumar,
coupled with the fact that on two occasions even previously the
High Court has come done heavily on selections made in similar, if
not identical manner, which is the case of Dr Bimal Prasad Singh
(supra) as well as Dr Arun Kumar Sinha, which is CWJC No.9167
of 2012, this Court, therefore, cannot view the matter lightly. The
Courts have commented on the people involved in such gross abuse
of power and on manner of selection making on the post of
Principals but it has had no effect on such persons. They have taken
the judicial orders very casually and continued to do what they
wanted as if they are above law.
57. The audacity of the then Vice Chancellor emerges
from the fact that he used the office of the Additional Solicitor
General as well as the name of Hon’ble Supreme Court to put up a
façade from any questioning of the advertisement or the selection.
This was done deliberately to scare away one and all who may have
raised questions on the need for issuance of such advertisement in
the very first place and the existence of vacancies.
58. The Court is of the opinion that this was Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
46/48
deliberately done by the then Vice Chancellor because time was
running out against him and he wanted to make a kill before his
imminent departure which was necessitated by the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.3.2013.
59. It was because of loaded materials on record and
concurrent findings of wrong doing by the then Vice Chancellor as
well as those in cahoots in such illegal acts that this Court directed a
Vigilance enquiry. Vigilance enquiry in the given facts and case
like this was the need of the hour. There are glaring instances of
criminality committed. The overbearing evidence and materials
gathered and compiled by various functionaries indicate so. It is
another thing that a Division Bench has for the time being passed an
order of restrain against the vigilance enquiry, as an interim measure
since the merit of the matter was still to be decided.
60. This Court, therefore, believes that in a matter like
this if the vigilance enquiry is not allowed to be completed and the
devils are not brought to book injustice would be done to the system
and the institutions. If such deviants are allowed to take law in their
hands and play with the system to their advantage it will send a
wrong signal and embolden others to emulate them. Even a
challenge has been thrown to the High Court as the judgments
mentioned above have been totally disregarded.Patna High Court 
61. Before parting the Court is tempted to quote para
18 of Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh’s case (supra) –
“18. It cannot be disputed that transparency and
accountability are call of the day. Every public
functionary must act responsibly, fairly, objectively
and with maximum possible transparency, in
consonance with the spirit of the Constitution and
statutory provisions. In the matter of public
employment, to conform with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16, the selection process must be
flawless, open and objective, giving equal opportunity
and equality in the matters of consideration to all
eligible candidates. In case fairness of a selection
process is called in question in a court of law, it is the
authority concerned which has to establish its actions
as strictly satisfying the test of Articles 14 and 16. Any
infraction in the same, leading to breach of the
Constitutional mandate, is bound to lead to invalidity
of the entire selection process. It is not the question of
consideration of the individual candidates and the
comparative rights between two individuals. It is the
question of inspiring confidence of the people in the
process adopted, by making it transparent to the
maximum and flawless. In this case the respondents
and particularly the Selection Committee constituted
as per the substituted Section 57 of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976 have failed to do so.”
62. In the totality of the discussions and the materials,
which are loaded against the appointments and selection made, this Patna High Court CWJC No.19620 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015
48/48
Court is left with no option but to quash Annexure-8 dated
16.1.2013, Annexure- 10 dated 6.3.2013 as well as Annexure- 21
dated 21.10.2014.
63. The respondents, who have been selected and
appointed on the post of Principals, shall cease and desist from
performing their duty as Principals of the respective colleges where
they are posted, forthwith. The Vice Chancellor of the University is
directed to ensure that they do not continue to perform duty as
Principals from today.
64. The writ application, therefore, stands allowed in
terms of the above.
65. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the
Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities of Bihar for his knowledge and
for remedial measures to improve the working of the Universities
and to identify the black sheep.
 sk
 (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
U

Print Page