Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2). For consideration of eligibility and comparative merit of the candidates, as per Statute of the University, total marks were allotted as 100, out of which maximum 71 marks were fixed for academic qualification from matriculation onwards, 9 marks were fixed for publication of research papers, maximum up to three in number and maximum 20 marks were fixed for interview. The candidates were interviewed on the dates fixed and, as per the yardstick, a chart was prepared by the Selection Committee (Annexure-3) of all the 351 candidates, in the seriatim of their application form numbers and category-wise, with separate columns for category, total marks for academic achievements, research paper, interview, grand total and rank. The details of the petitioners, as appearing in the said chart, is also mentioned by the petitioners in paragraph 14 of the writ application. Thereafter, on the basis of this chart the impugned panel was prepared, selecting 23 candidates of different categories and the impugned orders for appointment were issued.

Before considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court considers it appropriate to notice certain provisions of the Statute approved by the Chancellor and contained in Governor‟s Secretariat memo no. 2187 dated 30.6.2008 (copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ application of CWJC No.5730 of 2010). By this Statute the Selection Committee, as constituted by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2007 under substituted Section 57 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, was empowered to perform functions of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission in respect of selection for appointment to the post of teachers and officers (other than Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Dean of faculty) of the Universities. Clause 7 of this Statute provides for composition of a Selection Committee for recommendation for appointment on the post of principal for multiple subject faculty colleges. Clause 13 of the Statute gives details of the total maximum marks which could be allotted to the candidates in the process of selection and prescribes that the marks in respect of career and interview shall be in the ratio of 80%:20%. In the clause, the 80% marks has been sub-divided by clearly laying down different marks, faculty-wise, to be allotted on the basis of different qualifications, viz. Matriculation, Intermediate, Bachelors, Master, M.Phil and Ph.D/NET, as also 9 marks allotted for research papers. The manner for allotment of marks for different qualifications has been further laid down by indicating the marks to be allotted on the basis of division of the candidate secured in a particular examination. At the bottom of the Statute the note makes it clear that three marks were to be allotted for research paper published in standard (referred) journal/journals, to a maximum of 9 marks, provided the materials paper/papers were not part of either M.Phil or Ph.D. thesis. The 2nd note provides that, in addition to the 80% marks allotted to career, maximum 20% marks were to be allotted on the basis of performance in interview.

It is true that this Court cannot sit-over, as an appellate authority, over the marks awarded by an expert body in interview to the individual candidates. In this respect, reliance placed by learned counsels for the respondents on the judgments of the Apex Court is correct. But, if from the marks awarded, a clear pattern is discernible which shows that the same has been done in a planned manner to give undue advantage to some candidates and create disadvantage for others, this Court can surely form an opinion that the marks awarded by the expert body to the individual candidates in interview was not on objective and valid considerations. The petitioners have annexed the chart as Annexure-11 in respect of marks secured by the private respondents under different heads. The marks mentioned against the name of individual respondents in this chart tallies with that of in the chart prepared by the Selection Committee, as contained in annexure-3. Therefore, the correctness of the figures in Annexure- 11 cannot be doubted. This chart Annexure-11 contains the names of 20 out of 27 private respondents and the marks secured by them under different heads. From perusal of this chart, it becomes clear that 20 respondents, whose names figure in this chart, were in fact allotted much low marks in academic achievement, but were awarded much high marks in the interview. The total maximum marks for interview was 20. Out of the said 20 respondents, whose names figure in this Anneuxre-11, 8 were awarded 18 marks, 3 were awarded 17 marks, two were awarded 16 marks, 3 were awarded 15 marks and 1 each were awarded 11 and 12 marks. On the other hand, under the head of academic achievement, for which total maximum marks were 71, except for 3 i.e. respondent nos. 7, 11 and 22, who were allotted 60, 61 and 63 marks respectively, rest had been allotted much less than that. The chart shows that respondent no.16 had been allotted as low as 33 out of 71 marks, but was awarded 18 marks in interview out of 20. Similarly respondent no.13 had secured only 49 marks out of 71, but was awarded 18 marks out of 20 in interview. Similarly in the case of other respondents also, who were allotted marks in 50‟s for academic achievement, marks awarded in interview were quite high. As against this, petitioners have annexed a list, as contained in Annexure-10, containing the names of the candidates who had been allotted much high marks for academic achievements, and in 60‟s out of 71, but were awarded marks in interview only in single digit. The respondent University has taken a stand in the counter affidavit that in the interview the Selection Committed judged the „administrative acumen‟ and „managerial ability‟ of the candidates. No details are available in the counter affidavit of the University as to, on an average, for how much time one candidate was interviewed and in what manner the Selection Committee was able to judge the „administrative acumen‟ and „managerial ability‟ of the individual candidates.