GIRIJA NANDAN ROY Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been heard at length at the admission stage itself and with the consent of the parties is finally decided.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 18 -3 -1998 pased by the Registrar of Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga (hereinafter called the said University). By the said order the appointment of the petitioners have been held to be illegal. The petitioners have further challenged the order of the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna dated 8.1.1998. The Chancellor passed its order dated 8.1.1998 as the matter was remanded to the Chancellor by an order of this Court dated 28.4.1997 rendered in C.W.J.C.Nos. 647 of 1988 with C.W.J.C. No. 841 of 1989.

(3.) WHILE hearing the said writ petition, this Court heard the allegation that the appointment of the petitioners are vitiated on account of bias. It was stated before the Court that the sole basis of appointment was7 interview and there was no written test. It was urged before this Court in those proceedings which were disposed of by this Court on 23.4.1997 that the Professor Incharge of the said College (respondent no. 4 in those proceedings) was a relation of the petitioners. In fact the petitioners are his son -in -law and brother respectively and the said Professor Incharge being a member of the Selection Committee, it was stated that the appointment of the petitioners have not been fair but have been influenced by the said Professor Incharge. Therefore, a prayer was made to quash the appointment. In the context of the said allegation the Court held that merely because the son -in -law and brother of the Professor Incharge have been selected, it cannot be said that that by itself vitiates the selection process, but the Court was conscious of the fact that such allegations create doubt in the mind of the people and also in the mind of the Court about the legality of the selection. Therefore, the matter has to be examined factually and the Court thereafter gave liberty to the writ petitioners in those cases to make proper representation before the Chancellor and the Chancellor was requested to consider the matter upon notices to the concerned parties and examine the facts and then pass an order. Those writ petitions were disposed of in those terms.