Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20694 of 2018, the Patna High Court examined a recruitment dispute concerning the appointment of Assistant Professors (Orthopedics) at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna. The petitioner, an orthopedic doctor who had served as a Senior Resident and later as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor at IGIMS, challenged the appointment of two candidates (respondents) selected under Advertisement No. 04/Faculty/IGIMS/Estt./2018.

The petitioner alleged that although he possessed superior academic qualifications and teaching experience, the selection committee awarded higher marks to the other two candidates by adopting irregular and opaque marking methods.

Background

The petitioner held an MBBS and MS (Orthopedics) degree from Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) and had more than four years of teaching experience. He had also published nine research papers, including several in indexed journals. When results were announced, the petitioner was placed on the waiting list, while respondents were appointed as regular Assistant Professors.

The grievance centered on the evaluation sheet (Annexure-B) used by the selection committee, which allocated marks across categories such as educational qualifications, experience, awards, research publications, paper presentations, special training, and interview. The petitioner contended that the committee manipulated the marking process to unfairly benefit certain candidates by granting additional marks for research papers, experience, and special training that were not valid under the advertised criteria.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner asserted that the evaluation committee inflated the marks of respondent no. 3 and 4 without basis.
• Respondent no. 3 was allegedly given higher marks for research and experience beyond the permissible limits.
• Respondent no. 4 was awarded marks for teaching and training experience that occurred after the application submission deadline, which is impermissible in recruitment law.
• Both selected candidates were granted excessive marks under “research publication,” even though their supporting evidence did not justify such scores.

The petitioner sought cancellation of their appointments and requested that his own candidature be considered for regular appointment.

Respondents’ Defence

IGIMS (respondent nos. 1 and 2) and the appointed doctors defended the process, claiming:

• The recruitment followed AIIMS (New Delhi) standards, which IGIMS had adopted.
• The selection committee comprised eight experts who had discretion in awarding marks based on academic merit and research quality.
• The petitioner, having participated in the interview without objection, could not later challenge the procedure.
• Judicial review of expert evaluation is limited, relying on precedents such as Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) and Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Dr. S. Anandi (2015).

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Hon’ble Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha conducted a detailed review of the evaluation process and the documentary evidence submitted by all parties. The Court found multiple irregularities in the award of marks to the selected candidates:

1. For Respondent No. 3:
   • Claimed three years of teaching experience as Senior Resident but was granted two marks instead of one, contrary to the prescribed rule of “one mark for each extra year.”
   • His research publications were inflated — he was credited with more first/second authorships than proven, receiving 15 marks instead of the correct 12.
   • His total score was wrongly computed as 55 instead of 51.
2. For Respondent No. 4:
   • His DNB degree (equivalent to MS) was accepted, but the experience claimed did not meet the minimum standard.
   • He was granted marks for training and paper presentation that occurred after the submission deadline.
   • The committee gave him 15 marks for research when he was entitled to only 6, and two marks for paper presentation despite no evidence of such presentations.
   • Overall, he should have obtained only 46 marks but was awarded 62 — a substantial and unjustified difference.
3. For the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner had over four years of teaching experience, qualifying for two marks under experience but was given only one.
   • His publications justified 15 marks, but he received only 11.
   • Based on the corrected computation, the petitioner’s aggregate should have been 57, higher than respondent no. 3 and substantially more than respondent no. 4.

The Court also emphasized that according to settled recruitment principles, candidates’ qualifications and experience must be considered as on the last date of application submission, not for any training or publications obtained thereafter.

Furthermore, the Court noted that while DNB and MS are treated as equivalent degrees by the Medical Council of India, for teaching posts, preference may justifiably be given to holders of an MS degree.

Court’s Decision

After detailed scrutiny, the Patna High Court concluded that the selection process suffered from clear irregularities.

• The appointment of Respondent No. 4 (Dr. Kumar Chandan) was set aside as illegal and unsustainable.
• The Court directed IGIMS to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as Assistant Professor (Orthopedics) within three months in accordance with law.
• The appointment of Respondent No. 3 (Dr. Nishant Kashyap) was upheld since one post still remained validly filled.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling underscores the necessity of transparency and objectivity in public recruitment, especially for academic and medical institutions. The Court reiterated that:

• Evaluation criteria must be followed strictly; expert discretion cannot override predefined scoring methods.
• Marks cannot be awarded arbitrarily or based on achievements acquired after the closing date.
• Judicial review remains permissible when procedural fairness or evaluation standards are breached, even in expert selections.

For government bodies and institutions, this case serves as a caution against opaque or manipulated assessment practices in faculty recruitment. For candidates, it reaffirms that courts will intervene to uphold merit and fairness when irregularities are proven through records.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the evaluation and marking process at IGIMS complied with the advertised criteria:
  → No. The committee deviated from the fixed evaluation scheme and awarded marks inconsistently.
• Whether a candidate can be credited for qualifications or experience acquired after the application deadline:
  → No. Eligibility must be assessed as of the closing date.
• Whether DNB and MS are equivalent for teaching posts:
  → Yes, but preference can be given to MS holders.
• Final Outcome:
  → Appointment of Respondent No. 4 was quashed; petitioner’s appointment directed.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1995 SC 1088
• D. Saroj Kumari v. R. Helen Thikaka, (2017) 9 SCC 478
• Manish Kumar Sahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576
• Ramesh Chandra Sah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309
• Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 3 PLJR (SC) 190
• Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Dr. S. Anandi, (2015) 4 PLJR 45 (SC)

Judgments Relied Upon by Court

• University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491
• Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372
• Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Dr. Sivasubramaniyam, (2015) 4 PLJR 45 (SC)

Case Title

Petitioner v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 20694 of 2018

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 335

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha

Names of Advocates and Appearance

• For Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Mr. Sameer Sawaran
• For Respondents 1 & 2 (IGIMS): Mr. P.K. Shahi (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
• For Respondent No. 3: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai
• For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Ankit Katriar

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjA2OTQjMjAxOCMxI04=-IpJs23I4toE=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.