BIMAL PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications have been taken up and heard together as the issues raised in them are common. The Petitioners are primarily aggrieved with the selection process held by the Respondent University for appointment of principals on regular basis in its constituent colleges, in which Respondent Nos. 7 to 32 were selected and appointed and the Petitioners of the writ applications were unsuccessful.

(2.) Petitioners of the first writ application have prayed for quashing of notification contained in Memo No. 64/2009 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure-4), by which, under the signature of the Registrar of the Respondent University, a panel of successful candidates under different categories was notified, which was meant to be taken into account for filling up future vacancies also. They have further prayed for quashing of Notification contained in Memo No. 65/2009 dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-5), 96-01/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure-7) and 96-02/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure-8), by which, in different transactions, the Respondents have been appointed as principals of different constituent colleges of the University. Further prayer of the Petitioners is for a direction to the Respondents to advertise the post of principals afresh, after quashing the above said notification. Prayer has also been made for restraining the Respondents from joining and performing their duties and to further restrain the Respondents from making any more appointment on the post of principal from the said impugned panel. The sole Petitioner of the 2nd case has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the Respondents to appoint him on a vacant sanctioned post of principal with all consequential benefits. The sole Petitioner of the 3rd case, though of the same name, has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the Respondents to award him three more marks for research papers and appoint him as principal with all consequential benefits. Apart from these three independent writ applications, some interventions have also been sought for in the matter by different parties. One I.A. No. 4663 of 2010 has been filed by one Smt. Kanchana Singh seeking to intervene in the 1st writ application in opposition, as she was affected by interim order passed by this Court on 21.12.2009, by which the Respondent University was restrained from making any further appointment from the existing panel. The writ Petitioner of the 2nd case has also filed an I.A., No. 5254 of 2010, in the first case to intervene as Respondent with a prayer to extend the validity of the panel, in view of the order of stay passed by this Court, in the light of the doctrine 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit'. He also filed two I. As, namely, I.A. No. 4490 of 2010 and I.A. No. 5132 of 2010, in his own writ application for vacating the order of stay passed by this Court in the first case and also praying for holding that period of stay of the panel should not be counted for period of validity of the panel. One more I.A. is on record of the first case, namely, I.A. No. 8443 of 2009, which was filed on behalf of the Petitioners for restraining the Respondents from appointing any person on the post of principals from the impugned panel which was taken up and considered by a Bench of this Court and interim order dated 21.12.2009 was passed restraining the Respondent University from making any further appointments from the panel..

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, is that an advertisement was published by the Respondent University in the daily newspaper on 25.10.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for their selection and appointment on the post of principals of constituent colleges of the University. The total vacancies notified through the advertisement were 22, out of which 8 were of General category, 6 of Scheduled Caste category (SC), 1 of Scheduled Tribe category (ST) and 7 of Extremely Backward Class category (EBC). The advertisement mentioned that the details of eligibility and other requirements could be found on the website of the University, address of which was given therein. It is stated that altogether 351 applications were received by the University, all of whom were called for interview, to be held from 3.2.2009 to 7.2.2009 and 11.2.2009. For the scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates, under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, a Selection Committee was constituted, comprising of 7 members, vide notification dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure-2). For consideration of eligibility and comparative merit of the candidates, as per Statute of the University, total marks were allotted as 100, out of which maximum 71 marks were fixed for academic qualification from matriculation onwards, 9 marks were fixed for publication of research papers, maximum up to three in number and maximum 20 marks were fixed for interview. The candidates were interviewed on the dates fixed and, as per the yardstick, a chart was prepared by the Selection Committee (Annexure-3) of all the 351 candidates, in the seriatim of their application form numbers and category-wise, with separate columns for category, total marks for academic achievements, research paper, interview, grand total and rank. The details of the Petitioners, as appearing in the said chart, is also mentioned by the Petitioners in paragraph 14 of the writ application. Thereafter, on the basis of this chart the impugned panel was prepared, selecting 23 candidates of different categories and the impugned orders for appointment were issued.