The Patna High Court has delivered an important ruling for university recruitment in Bihar, particularly for Assistant Professor posts in Botany and Zoology. The dispute arose from a recruitment notice issued by the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) in September 2020 and a corrigendum issued in November 2020. The advertising framework accepted applications from candidates holding Master’s degrees in “concerned/relevant/allied” subjects. However, the corrigendum simultaneously added a new condition: candidates applying for Botany must have an Honours degree in Botany and those applying for Zoology must have an Honours in Zoology—even where the candidate’s Master’s was in an allied subject such as Bioinformatics. The High Court quashed this extra condition as illegal and contrary to the governing norms.

In this writ petition, the aggrieved person challenged (i) the omission of “Bioinformatics” from the list of allied subjects for Botany and Zoology in the original advertisement, and (ii) the corrigendum’s new “Honours in core subject is essential” remark. The petition sought quashing of the offending parts and a direction to include Bioinformatics as an allied/relevant subject for Botany and Zoology, consistent with the recruitment framework that recognizes “concerned/relevant/allied” Master’s disciplines.

The Court noted that the governing recruitment norms—both the advertisement and the applicable statutory framework—require a Master’s degree with at least 55% in a “concerned/relevant/allied” subject (with prescribed relaxations), and do not demand an Honours degree in the specific core subject. This principle appears in the advertisement’s essential qualification clause (Clause 4.1.A) and in the Universities of Bihar-2020 Statutes relied upon before the Court.

The record showed that, after the applicant highlighted the omission, the Commission issued a corrigendum dated 17.11.2020 recognizing Bioinformatics as an allied/relevant subject for both Botany and Zoology. Yet the same corrigendum inserted the new “Honours in Botany/Zoology is essential” remark—an addition the High Court found impermissible.

On a clear reading of the advertisement, statutes, and UGC-aligned criteria placed before it, the Court held that imposing an Honours-in-core-subject requirement midway through the process was “in the teeth of” the governing norms and therefore illegal. The Court quashed the corrigendum to that extent and clarified that for candidates with a Master’s in an allied subject such as Bioinformatics, an Honours in Botany or Zoology is not an essential educational qualification.

Further, the Court emphasized the settled principle that recruitment “rules of the game” cannot be changed once the process has begun. It relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance (including Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi and K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.) to reinforce that additional criteria cannot be post-facto introduced after candidates have applied under a different set of announced norms.

Finally, the Court directed the Commission to consider the aggrieved person’s candidature for Assistant Professor (Botany/Zoology) and to allow an online application consistent with the Court’s observations.

Significantly, the Court also noted that deciding whether a subject is “allied” is an academic matter typically left to expert bodies. In fact, the Commission—presumably acting on expert recommendation—had already treated Bioinformatics as allied to Botany and Zoology through the corrigendum; therefore, that aspect was not in dispute before the Court.

Overall, this ruling protects candidates with allied Master’s degrees from being excluded by new, mid-process hurdles that were absent from the original recruitment rules.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This decision has three key takeaways:

1. Protection against mid-process changes: Recruitment bodies in Bihar must adhere to the terms originally published in advertisements. Adding qualifications later—such as a compulsory Honours degree in the core subject—will likely invite judicial interference. This promotes predictability and fairness for applicants who structure their careers and applications around declared criteria.
2. Recognition of allied disciplines: Where recruitment rules themselves permit “concerned/relevant/allied” Master’s degrees, allied fields like Bioinformatics cannot be excluded unless the governing norms expressly say so. This is crucial for modern, interdisciplinary sciences and widens the pool of qualified teachers for Bihar’s universities.
3. Administrative guidance: Commissions may rely on expert committees to determine whether a subject is allied. Once such an academic decision is taken (e.g., recognizing Bioinformatics as allied to Botany/Zoology), courts generally do not second-guess it, provided it aligns with the published norms.

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

• Whether “Honours in core subject (Botany/Zoology) is essential” could be added via corrigendum after the recruitment notice allowed Master’s in concerned/relevant/allied subjects
  — Decision: No. The corrigendum unlawfully changed the rules mid-process and contradicted the advertisement and applicable statutes. The remark requiring Honours in the core subject was quashed.
• Whether Bioinformatics is an allied subject to Botany and Zoology for the purpose of eligibility
  — Decision: The Commission had already recognized Bioinformatics as allied via corrigendum; hence, the Court treated this academic determination as not in issue and recorded that the allied-status aspect stood accepted.
• What relief should be granted to the aggrieved person
  — Decision: The Commission must consider the candidature for Assistant Professor (Botany/Zoology) and allow an online application in line with the Court’s findings.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Dr. G. Chandran v. The Registrar, Tamil University, W.P.(MD) No. 3441 of 2018 (Madras High Court), para 28 — cited to show that equivalence/allied-subject decisions are academic matters for experts rather than courts.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 — rules of the recruitment “game” cannot be changed after the process has begun; quoted extensively.
• K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 — extracted passages reinforcing the prohibition on post-hoc criteria like new cut-offs.
• P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721; Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 4 SCC 646; Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51 — collective reliance to affirm that authorities cannot alter criteria mid-way.

Case Title

Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC) — Patna High Court (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

Case Number

CWJC No. 8860 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 752

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate
• For the respondents (Nos. 4–6): Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate

Link to Judgment

MTUjODg2MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-DkUGmL68sFs=

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.