Patna High Court Quashes Arbitrary Cancellation of Selection Process for Assistant Professors: “Entire Selection Committee Constituted in Breach of Statutory Mandate” — Upholds Rights of Petitioners Challenging Fresh Advertisement

Court’s Decision:

The Patna High Court quashed the fresh advertisement issued in October 2019 for the appointment of Assistant Professors in Chemistry and Persian at Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya. The Court held that the cancellation of the previous selection process, in which the petitioners were successful candidates, was arbitrary and in violation of Section 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Court further ordered the reinstatement of the results of the earlier selection process and directed the respondent college to proceed with appointments as per the previous merit list.

Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioners were appointed on an ad hoc basis as Assistant Professors in the Departments of Chemistry and Persian at Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, and continued to serve in these roles until the dispute arose.
2. In March 2018, a fresh advertisement was issued inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors across multiple departments, including Chemistry and Persian.
3. After completing the selection process, a merit list was published in February 2019, in which the petitioners secured second and fourth positions in their respective departments.
4. Despite the publication of the merit list, the college did not issue appointment orders and later canceled the selection process without providing any valid reasons.
5. Subsequently, a new advertisement was issued in October 2019, inviting fresh applications for the same posts, leading the petitioners to challenge this arbitrary cancellation in the present writ petition.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the cancellation of the earlier selection process.
2. Whether the selection committee constituted for the fresh advertisement in October 2019 was valid under the provisions of Section 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioners argued that the selection committee for the fresh advertisement was constituted in complete violation of Sections 57-A and 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as it lacked the mandatory university representation and failed to adhere to the prescribed norms for the constitution of the interview board.
2. The petitioners contended that the cancellation of the previous selection process was arbitrary, especially when they were selected on merit and had met all the eligibility criteria.
3. The petitioners further submitted that the new advertisement was issued to favor certain candidates and promote nepotism, as evident from the selection of relatives of influential members of the college’s governing body.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondents argued that the fresh selection process was conducted in accordance with the institution’s right to autonomy as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution.
2. They contended that the petitioners, having participated in both the old and new selection processes, could not now challenge the validity of the second advertisement as it would be barred by the principles of waiver and estoppel.
3. The respondents also asserted that the petitioners did not have any vested right to be appointed merely because they were placed in the earlier merit list, as the appointments were subject to the final approval of the governing body.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court analyzed Sections 57-A and 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which lay down specific guidelines for the constitution of a selection committee for appointments in affiliated colleges. The Act mandates that the selection committee must include representatives from the university and be constituted transparently.

The Court emphasized that any selection process that does not adhere to the statutory requirements is void ab initio. In the present case, the respondents failed to show compliance with these provisions, making the selection process illegal.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahay Vs. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17, where it was held that the constitution of selection committees must strictly adhere to statutory norms, failing which the entire process would be deemed illegal.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the cancellation of the previous selection process without valid reasons was not only arbitrary but also infringed upon the petitioners’ right to fair treatment. The governing body’s act of issuing a fresh advertisement was intended to benefit certain candidates and lacked bona fides.

Furthermore, the absence of a duly constituted selection committee for the new advertisement violated Section 57-B of the Act, rendering the subsequent selection process illegal. The Court held that minority institutions, while enjoying autonomy, must still adhere to statutory mandates when conducting appointments.

Conclusion:

The Court quashed the fresh advertisement issued in October 2019 and directed the respondents to implement the results of the previous selection process, as the petitioners had been selected on merit. The Court further observed that any future attempts to bypass statutory mandates would not be tolerated.

Implications:

This judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in the constitution of selection committees, even for minority institutions. The ruling also underscores that arbitrary cancellation of selection processes without valid reasons cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

Also Read – Madras High Court: “Mere Suspicion is Not Enough; Truth Must Be Established Through Credible Evidence” – Dismisses Election Petition for Lack of Proof