RAKESH RANJAN Vs. BIHAR STATE UNIVERSITY SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy herein is as to who is entitled to the appointment to the single post of Assistant Professor in Rural Studies in a selection carried out by the Bihar State University Service Commission (for brevity 'the Commission'). The appointments were to be made to the vacant post of Assistant Professors in different Universities and constituent Colleges, as per the requisition made by the Education Department, Government of Bihar. The dispute raised by the writ petitioner was against the marks awarded to the 5th Respondent for teaching experience. Both the writ petitioner and the 5th Respondent; who is the appellant herein, obtained 10 marks each for the teaching experience. The 5th Respondent in the overall tally obtained one mark more than the writ petitioner, thus getting selected for appointment.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, by an order dtd. 25/7/2023, noticing the contention raised by the writ petitioner that the 5th Respondent had completed his Post-Graduation only in July 2014; thus, putting at peril his claim of teaching as a faculty since 10/1/2011, directed the Vice-Chancellor, Patna University to constitute a committee of experts, who will act as a fact finding committee as regards the existence and contents of the documents produced by the 5th Respondent. The 5th Respondent thereafter filed an interlocutory application for modification of the order dtd. 25/7/2023, wherein, on 8/8/2023, another interim order was passed directing that the fact finding committee shall also verify the teaching experience of the writ petitioner. A report was submitted by the Vice- Chancellor, Patna University, Patna finding that there is no evidence available of the 5th Respondent having engaged any classes between 10/1/2011 to 2014, as claimed in the certificate. However, from July 2015 to 2018 while the 5 th Respondent was continuing as a Ph.D. Research Scholar, he is said to have engaged classes and completed his Ph.D. in December, 2018. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it was reported that there was no evidence of the writ petitioner having any teaching experience between 2001 to 2007. The writ petitioner completed her Master Degree in 2003 and from 2007 to 2020, she had engaged classes and honorarium was also paid to her.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that the report of the Vice-Chancellor had not been disputed, either by the writ petitioner or the 5th Respondent and hence, relying on the report filed, placing reliance also on Clause 5.4 of the advertisement; found the teaching experience, certified between 2015 to 2018, in the case of the 5th Respondent to be not possible of acceptance since that was the period when he was associated as a Research Scholar, pursuing his Ph.D. The certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was also found to be in-accurate. In that circumstance, the Respondent-Commission was directed to award marks under the heading teaching experience to the writ petitioner and the 5th Respondent on the basis of the report of the Vice-Chancellor, Patna University and prepare the result of the selection process. Admittedly, the Commission had complied with the directions and issued an order of selection in favour of the writ petitioner. The challenge is against the impugned judgment and the directions therein.