Patna High Court
Dr. Dinesh Prasad Gond vs The Bihar State University Service ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1580 of 2024
======================================================
1. Dr. Dinesh Prasad Gond Son of Late Moti Lal Prasad, Resident of Village-
Fazilpur, Kandhpaker, Police Station- Asaon, District- Siwan, Bihar
(841287).
2. Dr. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Ram, Resident of Village-
Piparahia, Police Station- Asaon, District- Siwan, Bihar (841245).
3. Vidhan Chandra, Son of Dinesh Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-
Barahiya, Tola- Dani, Police Station- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai, Bihar
(811302).
4. Dr. Kumar Abhishek, Son of Raj Banshi Singh, Resident of A-15,
Prabhunath Nagar, Tari, Chhapra, P.S. Mufassil, District- Saran, Bihar
841301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State University Service Commission through its Chairman, 8th
Floor, Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg,
Patna, Bihar- 800001.
2. The Chairman, Bihar State University Service, Commission, 8th Floor,
Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg, Patna,
Bihar- 800001.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State University Service, Commission, 8th Floor, Bihar
School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg, Patna, Bihar-
800001.
4. The University Grants Commission, through the Chairman, Bahadur Shah
Jafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
For the BSUSC : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate
For the UGC : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
2/18
alia, for setting aside the minutes of meeting dated 22.09.2023
published by the Respondent Bihar State University Service
Commission (in short 'the Commission') whereby and
whereunder the authorities have decided that the Post-
Graduation Degree of Applied Microbiology is not a
relevant/allied subject of Botany for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor.
3. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 having completed
their Masters in Applied Microbiology from Banaras Hindu
University (in short 'BHU') and petitioner no.3 has completed
his post-graduation in the subject of applied Micro-Biology
from Patna University, passed the NET examination conducted
by CSIR-UGC in the subject of Life Science. On being found
eligible, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant
Professor in different Universities in terms of the Advertisement
issued by the Commission on 21.09.2020.
4. The captioned advertisement contained allied
subjects and in the subject of Botany it contained 7 allied
subjects, including the subject of Micro-Biology. The list of
relevant/allied subject was modified by a corrigendum dated
17.11.2020and the subject of Bio-informatics was added to the list, hence it is contended that the list of allied subject was not Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 3/18 final. The petitioners in the aforesaid premise had filed a writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 21322 of 2021 for being considered for appointment in the subject of Botany on the strength of their post-graduation degree in the subject of Applied Microbiology. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2023 with a direction to the respondent Commission to revisit the list of concerned/relevant/allied subject and consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Clause 3.8 of the Statute within a period of two months.
5. In terms with the order of this Court, the claim of the petitioners along with other candidates were duly considered by a Committee for their recruitment as Assistant Professor in the subject of Botany and the same has been rejected by order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), inter alia, on the ground that it is not an equivalent subject of Botany, since the branch of these five subjects are not related to Agriculture Science, they are related to Botany. The Committee further informed that the Commission has approved the earlier Equivalent Report submitted on 04.02.2020 and 20.10.2020.
6. Mr. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioners canvassing the aforesaid, facts at the outset, submitted that admitting the well settled principle that the decision of the Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 4/18 experts cannot be normally challenged in the writ jurisdiction, but the decision making process is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Opinion of the experts are as much amenable to judicial review as any judicial or administrative or executive action. It is further submitted that Wednesbury principle of judicial review that no authority shall take a decision which no reasonable man will take is inasmsuch as applicable to expert opinion as it is applicable to administrative or executive authority. In the present case, the experts have though taken note of advertisement of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission as well as the list of allied subjects of the State of Chhattisgarh, but have failed to consider the list of such allied subject of Botany, as determined by different Universities in the country.
7. It is further submitted that the Statute for appointment of Assistant Professor for the Universities in the State of Bihar was framed by the Chancellor and notified on 10.08.2020. The qualification prescribed in Article 3.3.1 of the Statute was in tune with the UGC Regulation, 2018 and it required a Masters Degree with 55% marks or an equivalent grade in the concerned/relevant/allied subjects. Article 3.8 of the Statute prescribed that the eligibility of candidate with degree in Concerned/Relevant/Allied subjects for any specific subjects Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 5/18 will be decided by the Commission on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of two or three subject experts.
8. Taking this Court to the aforenoted prescriptions, he thus submitted that the aforenoted Articles prescribed two types of Committee; (i) For determining the degree in the concerned/relevant/allied subjects of the core subject and (ii) for determining the equivalence with similar subjects with different names and different Universities. The minutes of the expert committee of the Commission dated 04.02.2020, as reiterated in its meeting dated 02.03.2020 prescribes that seven subjects were found to be relevant/allied for core subject of Botany. The same list prescribes that all seven subjects are eligible to participate NET examination in the subject of Live Sciences, including the other subject of Botany.
9. It is the specific contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the minutes of the meeting dated 04.02.2020 was prior to the date of advertisement, which was published on 21.09.2020, hence no reliance could have been placed on the same, unless and until applications were invited and application forms were filled up, the Commission had no knowledge about the relevant/allied subjects, in which the candidates have applied. There is nothing in the meeting Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 6/18 dated 04.02.2020 to suggest that the subject of Applied Microbiology or Agricultural Biotechnology or other subjects were considered in the aforesaid meeting. Moreover, the minutes of meeting dated 20.10.2020 has not been produced by the Commission. However, from the corrigendum dated 17.11.2020 it appears that the subject of applied Micro-Biology was not considered by the experts in the said meeting. The respondent authorities / experts have not considered and compared the syllabus of applied Micro-Biology vis-a-vis Micro-biology, which has been treated to be an allied/relevant/concerned subjects by the other Universities of the country.
10. Mr. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioners has taken this Court through the minutes of the meeting of the Experts and submitted that they have mechanically concluded that Applied Microbiology is not equivalent to Botany. The requirement of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Statute is not that that the Master's degree is required to be equivalent to the core subject, but it is required to be relevant/allied/concerned subject of the core subject. It is further contended that the minutes of the meeting dated 22.09.2023 clearly demonstrates that none of the experts from Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 7/18 the subjects, which were being considered, were present in the meeting. In the absence of any experts from Applied Microbiology/ Agriculture Bio-technology etc., no decision could have been reached by the authorities regarding comparison of the syllabus of the reference subject or the core subject. Therefore, the respondent authorities were not justified in constituting a committee, which did not include any expert from the subject, which were being considered by them.
11. It is lastly contended that in the case of Anand Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in, (2021) 12 SCC 390 though the Court held that two subjects are allowed to take NET examination in the core subject may not be conclusive, but it is very relevant for determining equivalence of subjects. In the present case, the authorities have not considered the impact of the fact that both the Applied Microbiology and Botany are eligible to appear in the NET examination conducted in the subject of Life Sciences.
12. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate representing the Commission while refuting the afore noted contention has vehemently submitted that issue raised before this Court is wholly misconceived and beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 8/18 inasmuch as, the Court in catena of decisions held that which subjects would be relevant or allied subjects for the core subject shall be decided by the academicians, since it is an academic issue. The Court is not expert in academic matters and in cases of this nature, the Court cannot have the expertise/knowledge to decide as to whether the particular discipline or subject is equivalent or allied or relevant subject to a particular or concerned subject. Identical matter has come up for consideration before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8940 of 2020 wherein the Court categorically observed as follows:
"9. According to the UGC Regulation and the Statutes for the appointment of Assistant Professors in the Universities of Bihar, it is required that report with respect to the Committee of Subject Experts be obtained with respect to taking a decision regarding the allied/relevant subject in which appointment shall be made. The report of the Subject Experts for the core subjects is thus required to be taken into consideration for taking any decision to include any subject as an allied subject of any one of the core subjects. Unfortunately, the Subject Expert Committee has declined to recommend "Women Studies" as one of the allied subjects in core subject of Humanities/Social Sciences.
10. This issue is best left to the wisdom and the Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 9/18 experience of the Subject Experts and of the UGC.
11. No mandamus can be issued to the authorities to include a particular subject in the list of allied subjects."
13. With respect to declaration of allied subject, the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1006 of 2018 has also reiterated that no mandamus can be issued in a matter, which is under the domain of the experts and that is why such matter is not considerable under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Coming to the facts of the case, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently submitted that the decision of the Expert Committee constituted in terms of Clause 3.8 of the 2020 Statutes has not found the subject of Applied Microbiology in which the petitioners possess Post Graduate degree to be a relevant/allied subject of Botany. It is further contended that the clarification issued by the UGC vide Letter No. F-17-6/2013 regarding relevance of the subject to be decided by the concerned University/Authority with the aid of experts in the concerned/related field as per its requirement. The aforesaid regulation of UGC only requires that the appointing authority "as per its requirement" with the help of subject experts of the core subject decide on the relevance of subject. Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 10/18 The subject experts of the core subject of Botany, a member of the committee decided the issue whether Applied Microbiology was a relevant/allied subject of Botany, suffices the requirement under the law and thus no interference is required. It is next contended that the UGC Regulations give complete autonomy to each appointing authority to decide as per its requirement the relevance of allied subjects with the aid of experts. The Applied Microbiology has its own distinct and interdisciplinary nature and thus the committee of experts has held it to be a branch of Agriculture Science and not of Botany. The decision of the Committee consisting of the experts of the core subjects is in strict compliance with the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
15. It is lastly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a common test of NET by subjects of different courses cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of equivalence.
16. In view of the facts noted hereinabove and the position of law, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Commission, prays for dismissal of the writ petition out rightly.
17. Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, learned Advocate for Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 11/18 the University Grants Commission has also filed a counter affidavit and categorically submitted that with regard to Equivalency of Degrees, UGC refers to UGC Public Notice Letter No. F.9-3/2016 (CPP-II) dated 19.07.2016 wherein Equivalence of Degrees, Diplomas, certificates etc. are not determined by the UGC. In the case of higher education, equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases of employment, promotion etc., equivalence is decided by the employing organization. The respondent University Grants Commission is only entrusted with the function of regulating and framing guidelines and regulations in the field of education so as to maintain and raise academic standards.
18. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate/Senior Advocate for the parties and also meticulously perused the materials available on record.
19. Before delving into the point of determination, it is relevant to not here that there is no confrontation with the legal position that equivalence of educational qualification is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of relevant academic standards and practical attainment of such qualification. Any decision of the appointing authority, based on Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 12/18 recommendations of an expert body should not be interfered with by the court, unacquainted with the relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence. However, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is well within its jurisdiction that the decision making process is always amenable to writ jurisdiction, if there is manifest error, resulting into grave injustice.
20. Coming to the issue as to whether the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality, it would be necessary to look into the captioned 'Advertisement', especially the relevant prescriptions and the notification of the Statute for appointment of Assistant Professor for the University of Bihar, 2020 framed by the Hon'ble Chancellor.
21. Clause 3.3 of the Statute for appointment of Assistant Professor prescribe essential qualification. Further Clause 3.8, which is relevant for determining the present issue, reads as follows: "The Eligibility of candidates with degree in Concerned / Relevant / Allied subjects. Eligibility of candidates with degree in concerned / relevant / allied subjects for any specific subjects will be decided by the commission on the recommendation of a committee consisting of two or three Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 13/18 subjects experts. The equivalence of similar subjects with different names in different Universities will be decided by committee consisting of two or three subjects experts."
22. Bare reading of the afore noted relevant prescriptions, there are two kind of committees stipulated under Clause 3.8 of the Statute (i) initially for determining the concerned / relevant / allied subjects of the core subject and (ii) for determining equivalent of similar subjects with different names in different Universities. The requirement of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Statute is not that the Masters degree is required to be equivalent to the core subject, but it is required to be concerned / relevant / allied subjects of the core subject, hence in the opinion of this Court what is required is that the subject must be related to the core subject and not equivalent to the core subject.
23. It is the admitted position that even by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit duly filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted that in other educational institutions or other appointment authority in different States guided by the UGC Regulation acknowledge Applied Microbiology to be at part with the Microbiology such as Hindu College, Delhi University; Central University of Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 14/18 Himachal Pradesh; Swami Shraddhanand College, Delhi University; Sri Venkateswara College, Delhi University; Daulat Ram College, Delhi University, North Eastern Hill University, (Central University), Munger, Purnea and Patna University as well as Banaras Hindu University. These Universities have categorically admitted that Applied Microbiology is the allied subject of Botany.
24. It is relevant to state here that ensuring consistency, the degree equivalence across different Universities is essential for promoting students mobility, fair employment opportunities and academic integrity, the individual institutions, admittedly having independent autonomy establishing standardized and transparent frame work is necessary to avoid inconsistent or confusing evaluation, which certainly prevent arbitrary decision. Without standardized frame works, evaluation can be subjective, though Courts have always cautioned that equivalence is a technical matter, however, it is needless to observe that in larger interest consistency is required.
25. Now coming to the impugned order, in pursuant to the order of this Court, a three men committee consisting of Professor and Head of the Department of Botany of three Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 15/18 different University after deliberation come to the conclusion that Agriculture Biotechnology, Agro Chemical and Pest Management, Plant Physiology, Applied Microbiology and Genetic Engineering cannot be accepted as equivalent subject of Botany as all the five subjects are the branches of Agriculture Science and they do not have any relevance and thus they cannot be treated as equivalent to the Botany.
26. A careful perusal of the order impugned, it appears that besides equivalence of five subjects have been determined by a three men committee, this Court also finds that what was required to be determined are as to whether the afore noted subjects were related to the core subject and not mere equivalent to the core subject. The committee consisting of three Professors and the Head of the Department of Botany have, in fact, never examined as to whether the question subject they are Concerned / Relevant / Allied subjects. Hence, the committee misdirected in ascertaining equivalence between Applied Microbiology and Botany. The Committee has committed further wrong by acknowledging and swaying away the earlier minutes of the meeting dated 04.02.2020 and 20.10.2020 despite disclosing the necessary facts as to whether subject of Applied Microbiology was considered by the subject experts in the said Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 16/18 meeting.
27. This Court is not oblivious with the settled proposition and the caution made by the Courts that such issue is best left to the wisdom and experience of the subject experts and of the UGC, since the Court is not expert in academic matters in cases of this nature. The Court cannot have the expertise or knowledge to decide as to whether the particular discipline or subject is equivalent or allied or relevant subjects to a particular or concerned subject. However, it is also not in dispute that while exercising the power of judicial review, it is not the decision, what is amenable is the decision making process and the manner in which the opinion has been given or, the administrative or the executive action is dehors the law.
28. The manner, in which the committee proceeded to decide the equivalence as well as concerned/relevance or alliance of all the five subjects in one go without proper deliberation and comparison to the syllabus of all the subjects, ignoring the fact that in various Universities/institutions, the subject of Allied Microbiology is treated as equivalent or Allied subject of Microbiology/Botany. Such casual and cavalier manner would certainly not satisfy the requirement and the expectation of the Court, for which on the last occasion the Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 17/18 matter was relegated to the experts in C.W.J.C. No. 20839 of 2021 and other analogous cases, directing the Commission to revisit its list of the Concerned/Relevant/Allied Subjects in accordance with Clause 3.8 of the Statute and notify its decision. The respondents were expected to judiciously apply their mind by comparing the syllabus of the reference subject vis-a-vis, the core subject.
29. In the present case, the authorities/experts have mechanically concluded that Applied Microbiology is not equivalent to Botany, though the Statute clearly prescribes that the Master degree is required not only equivalent to the core subject, but it can also be considered if it is Relevant/Allied/Concerned subject of the core subject. This requirement has been, prima facie, overlooked. Hence this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order, as contained in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 22.09.2023, communicated through notice dated 22.09.2023, published by the Bihar University Service Commission.
30. The matter is once again relegated to the Commission to revisit and examine the subject of Applied Microbiology as to whether it is Concerned/Relevant/Allied subject to the core subject of Botany or not.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026 18/18
31. This Court is apprised that till date, the interview of the subject of Botany has not been conducted, hence it is expected that the Commission shall constitute a Committee in accordance with the Statute and take a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
32. The writ petition stands disposed of with the afore noted direction.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 04.11.2025 Uploading Date 10.02.2026 Transmission Date NA