"Judicial Review of Recruitment Process: Patna High Court Upholds Fairness in Assistant Professor Selection"


 

Introduction

This case involves a writ petition filed by multiple candidates, including Krishna Mohan Singh, against the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) and the State of Bihar. The petitioners challenged changes made to the selection criteria for Assistant Professors after the recruitment process had already begun. They sought to nullify a resolution dated July 14, 2021, and a memorandum issued on July 22, 2021, arguing that these changes unfairly affected their eligibility and violated established rules.

Background of the Case

In September 2020, the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects. The eligibility criteria at the time required:

  • A minimum of 55% marks in the relevant postgraduate subject.

  • A valid NET/BET qualification or a Ph.D.

  • Experience considered only if confirmed by the University Selection Committee, College Service Commission, or College Selection Committee (as per Clause 5.5 of the advertisement).

The petitioners, who applied based on these original criteria, argued that the selection process was later altered in the following ways:

  1. The experience requirement was relaxed to include ad-hoc and guest faculty experience.

  2. A three-member committee was formed to validate the experience certificates issued by department heads or principals, countersigned by university registrars.

  3. The new rules expanded the pool of eligible candidates, affecting the petitioners' competitive standing.

Key Legal Issues

  1. Change in Selection Criteria Mid-Process: Whether modifying the selection process after the application window had closed was legal.

  2. Validity of Guest Faculty Experience: Whether teaching experience gained as a guest or ad-hoc faculty should count toward eligibility.

  3. Interpretation of Clause 5.5: Whether the rule restricting experience to officially confirmed appointments excluded guest faculty.

  4. Fairness in Public Recruitment: Whether the commission’s actions violated candidates’ rights by altering the "rules of the game" after the process had started.

Arguments by the Petitioners

  1. Unfair Modification of Rules: The petitioners contended that once the recruitment process had begun, the criteria could not be changed as it would disadvantage some applicants.

  2. Clause 5.5 Interpretation: They argued that only experience confirmed by the University Selection Committee or College Service Commission should be counted, excluding guest faculty experience.

  3. Violation of Precedents: The petitioners cited past Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, 2001) that ruled against altering selection criteria after recruitment had begun.

  4. Objections by Universities: Some universities, including Patna University and Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, had objected to issuing experience certificates to guest faculty, which further supported their claim.

Arguments by the Respondents (BSUSC & State of Bihar)

  1. Clarification, Not Modification: The respondents argued that the changes were not new rules but mere clarifications of existing provisions, ensuring uniformity in certificate issuance.

  2. Purpose of Experience Consideration: The experience criteria were intended to include actual teaching experience, regardless of whether it was gained in a regular or ad-hoc capacity.

  3. No Selection Had Taken Place Yet: Since no candidate had been selected or rejected under the new guidelines, the petitioners had no valid grievance.

  4. Precedents Allow Guest Faculty Experience: The respondents cited past Supreme Court cases where ad-hoc experience was counted towards eligibility, arguing that the same should apply here.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

After hearing both parties, the Patna High Court made the following key observations:

  1. No Rules Were Changed, Only Clarified: The court held that the three-member committee’s decision was a clarification, not a rule change. Since the advertisement did not specify the format of experience certificates, it was reasonable to issue a clarification.

  2. Guest Faculty Experience is Valid: The court ruled that experience gained in an ad-hoc or guest faculty capacity still constitutes teaching experience. This aligns with past Supreme Court rulings stating that experience gained in various capacities should not be disregarded.

  3. No Prejudice Against Petitioners: Since no final selection had been made, the court found that the petitioners had not suffered any direct harm from the changes.

  4. Judicial Review in Recruitment Matters: The court emphasized that judicial interference in recruitment processes should be minimal unless there is clear illegality or bias. In this case, no legal wrongdoing was found.

Final Judgment

  • The writ petition was dismissed.

  • The changes to the selection process were upheld as clarifications, not modifications.

  • Guest faculty and ad-hoc teaching experience were deemed valid for eligibility.

  • The selection process was allowed to continue under the clarified guidelines.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

  1. Recruitment Authorities Can Clarify, Not Change, Rules Mid-Process: Once a selection process begins, fundamental changes are not allowed, but clarifications can be issued to resolve ambiguities.

  2. Guest Faculty Experience Holds Legal Value: Teaching experience in an ad-hoc or guest faculty capacity cannot be disregarded for eligibility unless explicitly stated in recruitment rules.

  3. Judicial Review is Limited in Ongoing Selection Processes: Courts are reluctant to intervene in recruitment unless there is clear illegality or procedural unfairness.

  4. Standardization of Experience Certification is Necessary: The case highlights the need for uniform certification requirements across universities to prevent discrepancies.

  5. Public Employment Must Be Inclusive: The ruling reinforces the importance of allowing all experienced candidates, including those in ad-hoc roles, to compete fairly in recruitment processes.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in this case clarifies the legal standing of ad-hoc teaching experience in public university recruitment. By upholding the clarification issued by BSUSC, the judgment ensures a fair selection process while reinforcing the principle that procedural changes must align with established legal principles. The ruling serves as a precedent for future disputes regarding recruitment criteria and procedural fairness.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTQyNCMyMDIyIzEjTg==-s--ak1--xTc7SQonY=