Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court dealt with a petition filed by a group of candidates who had completed their higher studies in the subject “Women Studies.” They challenged an advertisement issued by the Bihar State University Service Commission on 21 September 2020 for recruitment of Assistant Professors in constituent colleges of Bihar’s universities. Their grievance was that the subject Women Studies had not been recognized as an “allied subject” to any of the core subjects like History, Sociology, or Social Sciences in the recruitment process.
The petitioners argued that since the University Grants Commission (UGC) itself recognizes Women Studies as an allied subject for UGC-NET under core disciplines like History, Economics, and Social Sciences, they had a legitimate expectation that their subject would also be treated similarly in Bihar. They pointed out that several universities across India, including major institutions, had recognized Women Studies as an allied subject, and therefore Bihar should not be an exception. They even referred to a communication from the Registrar of Patna University requesting consideration of Women Studies for inclusion.
On the other side, the State and the Commission contended that a corrigendum dated 17 November 2020 was issued during the pendency of the writ petition. This corrigendum included some additional subjects after the opinion of Subject Experts was taken. However, Women Studies was not included because the Subject Expert Committee declined to recommend it as an allied subject under Social Sciences. The Commission argued that according to UGC Regulations and the governing statutes, it is the Subject Expert Committee’s opinion that must guide decisions on whether a subject qualifies as “allied.”
The Court carefully examined the matter. It observed:
- Courts cannot themselves declare which subjects should be treated as allied; this responsibility lies with Subject Experts and regulators like UGC.
- The petitioners, however, had a fair expectation that their specialized learning in Women Studies would not go to waste, especially since it is recognized in UGC-NET and by other universities.
- Considering that Women Studies has gained acceptance across many Indian universities, including Patna and Magadh Universities, the matter deserves attention from the authorities.
Ultimately, the Court refused to quash the advertisement or issue a mandamus to include Women Studies directly. Instead, it directed that if the petitioners submit a representation before the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar within two weeks, the authority must consider it appropriately and take a decision. Since recruitment interviews for other subjects were still ongoing, a timely decision could potentially benefit the petitioners.
The writ petition was thus disposed of with these directions, leaving the final decision to the discretion of the concerned educational authorities, but expecting them to consider Women Studies in line with broader national trends.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For Students and Scholars of Women Studies: The judgment highlights the struggle for recognition of Women Studies as a mainstream discipline. While the Court did not grant immediate relief, it opened a path for formal consideration by the State government.
- For Universities in Bihar: The ruling encourages universities to align with the national academic framework where Women Studies is treated as an allied subject. This will help Bihar students access teaching positions fairly.
- For Educational Policy: The Court reaffirmed that academic policy matters are best decided by Subject Experts, but it reminded authorities that exclusion of nationally accepted subjects risks unfairness to qualified candidates.
- For Governance: The judgment balanced judicial restraint with concern for fairness, ensuring that decision-making rests with experts while also safeguarding students’ expectations.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether Women Studies should be treated as an allied subject in recruitment for Assistant Professors?
Decision: The Court did not mandate inclusion. It held that only Subject Experts and UGC can decide allied subjects. However, it acknowledged the petitioners’ legitimate expectation and directed authorities to consider their representation. - Whether the Court could quash the advertisement for excluding Women Studies?
Decision: No. The Court stated it cannot override expert committees. But it suggested timely consideration may benefit petitioners before recruitment concludes.
Case Title
Dr. Sumit Saurav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8940 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 192
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 1 — for the petitioners
- Mr. Pawan Kumar Choudhary — for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 (Bihar State University Service Commission)
- Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP-27 — for the State of Bihar
Link to Judgment
MTUjODk0MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-pA2Jeg–ak1–2D5Y=
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.
