Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, led by Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the order of a Single Judge that had refused relief to petitioners seeking consideration of their teaching experience certificates for recruitment as Assistant Professors in Chemistry under the Bihar State University Service Commission.
The Division Bench held that since the Single Judge had already relied upon an earlier binding decision of a coordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024, which had decided identical issues, the appellants’ only remedy was to seek a civil review, not to file a fresh appeal. The Court clarified that an LPA cannot be entertained merely to re-argue issues already adjudicated upon by a coordinate Division Bench, and accordingly dismissed the appeal while reserving liberty to the appellants to pursue a review petition.
Facts
The appellants, both candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry, had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 21 September 2020 issued by the Bihar State University Service Commission. The recruitment was for filling vacant posts across various constituent and affiliated colleges under the Education Department, Government of Bihar.
The dispute arose when the Commission refused to accept their experience certificates issued by technical colleges — Nalanda College of Engineering, Sitamarhi Institute of Technology, Bhagalpur College of Engineering, and Katihar Engineering College. These certificates were countersigned by the Registrar of Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU). The petitioners contended that such experience should have been considered under the “experience” criterion for award of additional marks in the selection process.
Their writ petitions sought directions to the Commission to accept and consider these experience certificates while preparing the merit list, or alternatively, to stay the recruitment process in Chemistry till their claim was resolved.
The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed their petitions on 14 November 2024, relying upon a prior Division Bench judgment dated 6 September 2024 in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024, which had already settled identical issues in a similar recruitment matter against candidates claiming teaching experience from engineering institutions.
Issues
- Whether the Bihar State University Service Commission was justified in rejecting experience certificates from engineering colleges countersigned by the Aryabhatta Knowledge University Registrar.
- Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions solely based on a prior Division Bench judgment without independent consideration.
- Whether an LPA is maintainable when the impugned order merely follows a binding precedent of a coordinate Division Bench.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that their experience certificates were genuine and issued by recognized government engineering institutions affiliated to Aryabhatta Knowledge University. They submitted that the Registrar’s countersignature validated their teaching experience, which ought to have been recognized for awarding marks under the experience head.
They contended that the Bihar State University Service Commission had arbitrarily rejected these certificates, depriving them of legitimate marks and opportunity for selection. The appellants further argued that the learned Single Judge mechanically dismissed their petitions without appreciating the factual distinction between their case and the earlier decision in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024, which, according to them, dealt with different institutions and circumstances.
The counsel emphasized that the appellants were not parties to the earlier case, and therefore, the Single Judge’s reliance on that judgment without hearing their specific facts amounted to denial of natural justice. On these grounds, they invoked the Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Respondent’s Arguments
The counsel for the Bihar State University Service Commission opposed the appeal, submitting that the controversy was no longer res integra, as the Division Bench had conclusively settled the question of considering teaching experience from engineering colleges for university-level recruitment.
He contended that the Single Judge rightly followed the binding precedent in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024, which had upheld the Commission’s decision to exclude such experience certificates since the teaching experience in technical institutions did not equate to university-level teaching under the Commission’s recruitment norms.
The respondents argued that once a Division Bench has pronounced upon an issue, a Single Judge is bound to follow that precedent, and any party aggrieved must seek review of the earlier judgment, not file a fresh LPA to reopen settled questions. The counsel further submitted that the scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is limited, and the present appeal was an attempt to re-litigate issues already adjudicated upon by a coordinate Bench.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of maintainability of LPAs against orders that merely apply binding precedents. Relying on settled principles under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the Bench observed that an appeal is maintainable only when there is an independent adjudication of rights by the Single Judge, not when the order is purely consequential upon a binding precedent.
The Bench referred to the principle of judicial discipline, under which coordinate Benches are bound by prior decisions on the same issue unless overruled by a larger Bench. Thus, once the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024 had conclusively decided that experience in engineering institutions does not qualify for marks under the university recruitment framework, the Single Judge was correct in dismissing the petition following that decision.
The Court clarified that any attempt to distinguish factual circumstances or challenge the correctness of a binding precedent must be pursued through a civil review petition, not a fresh appeal. An LPA, being appellate in nature, cannot be used to indirectly reopen or question a precedent already pronounced by a Division Bench of equal strength.
Precedent Analysis
- L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024 (Patna High Court, decided on 6 September 2024) – The Division Bench had ruled that teaching experience obtained from technical or engineering colleges, even if affiliated with Aryabhatta Knowledge University, could not be treated as equivalent to university-level teaching experience for recruitment under the Bihar State University Service Commission. The Court relied on recruitment norms and UGC guidelines to hold that such experience does not carry eligibility marks under the Commission’s selection process.
Relevance: The present appeal arose from the same issue, and the Single Judge’s dismissal followed this precedent. - Union of India v. R. Thiyagarajan (2021) 7 SCC 713 – The Supreme Court held that judicial discipline demands that coordinate Benches follow prior binding judgments, and deviation can occur only through reference to a larger Bench.
Relevance: The Court cited this principle to uphold the Single Judge’s reliance on prior Division Bench authority. - Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (1969) 2 SCC 74 – The Supreme Court emphasized that multiple remedies in the same hierarchy cannot be pursued simultaneously to reopen final decisions.
Relevance: The Bench applied this ratio to hold that filing an LPA instead of a review was impermissible.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge had not adjudicated any new legal issue but had merely followed an existing binding precedent that squarely covered the facts of the case. The appellants had not demonstrated how their situation materially differed from that of the petitioners in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024.
The Court further noted that if the appellants genuinely believed that their experience certificates stood on a distinct footing or that the prior decision required reconsideration, the appropriate course was to file a civil review before the same Bench that decided the earlier LPA. The Bench emphasized that filing a successive appeal to circumvent binding precedent is impermissible in law.
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the Court extended liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate forum by way of a review petition if they intended to distinguish their case from the earlier decision.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order and holding that:
- The question of considering teaching experience from engineering colleges for university recruitment had already been conclusively decided in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024.
- Since the Single Judge merely followed that decision, no independent cause of action arose for a fresh appeal.
- The appellants’ remedy lies in filing a civil review if they wish to distinguish their case from the earlier ruling.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the appellants to seek review, reaffirming the importance of judicial consistency and proper procedural remedies.
Implications
This decision underscores the doctrine of judicial discipline and the limited scope of Letters Patent Appeals. It clarifies that LPAs cannot be used to re-agitate matters already settled by coordinate Benches.
The ruling also highlights the procedural distinction between review and appeal, guiding litigants to approach the correct forum. Substantively, it reaffirms the earlier Division Bench view that teaching experience in technical institutions cannot be treated as equivalent to university-level experience for the purposes of recruitment by the Bihar State University Service Commission.
FAQs
1. Can a Letters Patent Appeal be filed against a Single Judge’s order based solely on a prior Division Bench judgment?
No. If the Single Judge merely applies a binding precedent, the proper remedy is a civil review, not a fresh appeal.
2. What did the Court say about teaching experience from engineering colleges?
The Division Bench reaffirmed that such experience does not qualify for experience marks under the Bihar State University Service Commission’s recruitment rules.
3. What remedy did the High Court leave open for the appellants?
The Court granted liberty to file a civil review to distinguish their case from the earlier decision in L.P.A. No. 653 of 2024.
