The Patna High Court, in a detailed judgment dated 08 October 2024, set aside a faculty recruitment process conducted by a minority-aided affiliated college under Magadh University, Gaya. The petition challenged the college’s 2019 advertisement for Assistant Professors issued after cancelling a previous 2018 selection round. The Court framed two principal issues—whether the petitioners had the locus standi to maintain the writ and whether the Selection Committee had been constituted in accordance with Section 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Both issues were decided in favour of the petitioners. Concluding that the selection violated the statutory quorum and composition mandated by Section 57-B, the Court quashed the 06.10.2019 advertisement and directed the Governing Body to re-advertise and constitute a fresh Selection Committee strictly in compliance with the Act.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns the legality of a teaching recruitment exercise in a minority-aided affiliated college. The petitioners (one from Chemistry and one from Persian) had earlier participated in a 2018 recruitment round where merit panels were prepared after interviews in February 2019. No appointments, however, were made from that exercise. Instead, the college published a fresh advertisement on 06 October 2019 announcing that the earlier process had been cancelled for “unavoidable reasons,” and invited new applications for several departments.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 alleging, among other grounds, that: (i) the second-round process suffered from legal infirmities; (ii) the Selection Committee was not constituted as per Section 57-B; and (iii) the abrupt cancellation of the earlier process was arbitrary. They also narrated specific instances suggestive of favouritism and threats during the pendency of the writ, though the core legal attack centred on statutory non-compliance with Section 57-B.

On maintainability (locus standi), the Court surveyed settled principles: a “person aggrieved” under Article 226 is one who suffers a legal injury due to a decision of the State or its instrumentalities, and must show infringement of a legally protected right. Relying upon classic authorities, including Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1962 SC 1044), Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana (1977) 1 SCC 486, Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33, and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Court held that where a selection process is alleged to be arbitrary and contrary to statute, persons directly affected can maintain a writ. It emphasised that a restrictive approach to standing would undermine the Rule of Law by forcing citizens to seek extra-legal remedies. Accordingly, the Court found that the petitioners, being directly impacted aspirants, had the necessary standing.

Turning to the statutory framework, the Court examined Section 57-A and 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act (as amended in 2013). For affiliated colleges, including minority institutions, appointments are to be made by the Governing Body “on the recommendation of the Selection Committee” constituted under Section 57-B. While acknowledging the autonomy afforded to minority institutions under Article 30, the Court underscored that such autonomy operates within the statutory scheme: in minority colleges, the Chairman of the Governing Body has the right to nominate three subject experts from a panel of five recommended by the Vice-Chancellor from the Academic Council’s list; the Principal and Head of Department are members; and the Governing Body’s Chair presides over the committee. The University’s role is limited but crucial: providing a vetted list of experts ensures quality and a minimum check against arbitrariness.

Applying these norms to the facts, the Court found that the Selection Committee for the impugned 2019 process did not meet the statutory composition and quorum mandated by Section 57-B. The record revealed that the interview board lacked the full statutory complement, and the method of selecting experts did not transparently trace back to the Academic Council’s panel recommended by the Vice-Chancellor. In the Court’s words, “the entire selection process has been conducted in complete breach of Section 57-B of the Act as quorum required for Selection Committee was totally missing, rendering the constitution of interview board illegal and arbitrary.”

The respondents—selected candidates and college authorities—had argued that: (a) as a recognized minority institution, the college enjoys autonomy to administer appointments; (b) petitioners, having participated in the process, were estopped from challenging it; and (c) no vested right accrued from the 2018 panel. The University, however, took the stand that both transactions (2018 and 2019) suffered non-compliance with Section 57-B and that the University had not been properly associated as contemplated by the Act.

After analysing the balance between minority rights and regulatory measures, the Court concluded that statutory safeguards governing the composition and functioning of Selection Committees are not an undue interference with Article 30 autonomy. Rather, they are permissible, minimal regulatory checks ensuring fair, merit-based selection in aided institutions. Since the 2019 exercise failed on the touchstone of Section 57-B, the Court quashed the 06.10.2019 advertisement and allowed the writ, directing the Governing Body to issue a fresh advertisement and to constitute a Selection Committee afresh in compliance with the Act.

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

This ruling clarifies that the autonomy of minority-aided institutions to administer appointments does not eclipse statutory safeguards meant to secure transparency and merit. For aided affiliated colleges, the recruitment of teachers must strictly follow Section 57-B’s structure—particularly the presence of the Principal, Head of Department, and subject experts drawn from a University-vetted panel. If any link in this statutory chain is missing (e.g., improper expert nomination or lack of quorum), the entire selection becomes vulnerable.

For the public and aspirants, the decision reaffirms that courts will protect fairness in recruitment even when candidates have participated in the process—participation is not a license to ignore hard statutory requirements. For the State and Universities, the judgment underscores the necessity of maintaining and supplying expert panels as a structured input into college appointments. For minority institutions, it signals that Article 30 autonomy must be exercised within a statutory architecture that ensures minimal, reasonable regulation.

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

• Locus standi of the petitioners
  • Decision: In favour of the petitioners.
  • Reasoning: A directly affected aspirant alleging breach of a statutory recruitment framework is an “aggrieved person” under Article 226. A restrictive approach to standing would erode the Rule of Law.
• Whether the Selection Committee complied with Section 57-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976
  • Decision: Non-compliance found; the selection was illegal.
  • Reasoning: The Selection Committee’s quorum and composition were not as mandated (Chairman of Governing Body, Principal, HoD, and three experts from a University-approved panel). The deficiency rendered the interview board’s constitution illegal and the process arbitrary.
• Consequence / Relief
  • Decision: The 06.10.2019 advertisement was quashed; the writ petition was allowed; the Governing Body must issue a fresh advertisement and reconstitute the Selection Committee in line with the Act.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 171 (estoppel after participation in selection).
• Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 309 (participation bars challenge).
• Sajeesh Babu K. v. N.K. Santhosh & Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 106 (deference to expert committee).
• Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahay v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17 (relied upon by petitioners).

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 (scope of Article 226; legal right foundation).
• Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486 (mandamus requires enforceable right).
• Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33 (who is an “aggrieved person”).
• Babu Ram v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 689 (definition of “aggrieved”).
• Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671 (standing; legal grievance).
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481; The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717; Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, (2020) 6 SCC 689 (minority rights and permissible regulation).

Case Title
Reena Kumari & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10935 of 2021)

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10935 of 2021 (Patna High Court)

Citation(s)
2025 (1) PLJR 334

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan (CAV Judgment dated 08.10.2024; CAV on 28.08.2024; AFR)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
• For respondent nos. 7 to 11: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Ms. Shristi Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate.
• For Magadh University: Mr. Sidhartha Prasad, Advocate.
• For Mirza Ghalib College: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate.
• For the State: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP-27; Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, AC to GP-27.

Link to Judgment
MTUjMTA5MzUjMjAyMSMxI04=-qOpWsAQ5JFE=

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.