Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection committee university in Dr. Arun Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 December, 2017Matching Fragments
Brief Facts
3. It is a matter of record that Magadh University, Bodh- Gaya in the State of Bihar published an advertisement dated 25.10.2008 inviting eligible candidates for selection and appointment Patna High Court LPA No.1461 of 2014 dt. 21-12-2017 against 22 vacancies of the post of Principals in the constituent colleges of the Magadh University. A selection committee was constituted for this purpose. The said selection committee conducted interview of the applicants and a panel was prepared which was also given effect to by appointing the candidates from the said merit list.
The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issues arising for adjudication as under:-
(i) Constitution of the Selection Committee
15. The petitioners in the writ applications strongly raised an issue as to the constitution of the Selection Committee by the Vice- Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya (respondent no.7) in exercise of his power under Section 57(B) of the University Act read with Clause 7 (i)(a) of the Statute of the Magadh University. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that by virtue of the amendments brought to the provisions of the University Act, the duty of selection and recommendation for the post of Principal of a constituent college was vested with the Bihar State University Constituent Colleges Service Commission and ultimately the same was vested in the selection Committee consisting experts constituted under Section 57 of the University Act. The petitioners claimed that the Vice-Chancellor in temporary charge was obliged to act in terms of Section 57 of the University Act read with Clause 7 (i) (a) of the Patna High Court LPA No.1461 of 2014 dt. 21-12-2017 Statute and for this purpose he was required to nominate three experts in the Selection Committee from and amongst the names approved in form of a panel by the Academic Council of Magadh University. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the Academic Council has statutory obligation under the provisions of the University Act to prepare and approve the panel of the experts, but instead of performing its statutory function the Academic Council in its meeting held on 05.07.2011 (Annexure-29) vide item no.5 of the agenda abdicated its power and authorized the Vice-Chancellor who was only in a temporary charge for preparation of a panel of experts for the selection committee. It is further case of the petitioners that the Academic council was required to approve the name of ten experts and from that approved list only the Vice-Chancellor could have taken three experts in the Selection Committee. Neither Section 57 of the University Act nor Clause 7 of the Statute of the Magadh University contemplate any delegation of power by the Academic Council in the matter of preparation of panel of experts. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that in the very first place the Academic Council should not and could not have delegated its power to prepare the panel of experts, to the Vice-Chancellor. It amounts to abdication of power.
39. In course of hearing of the writ applications, Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur, Dr. Raj Mukul, Dr. R. Pandey and Dr. Victor Tigga who were all members of the Selection Committee filed their respective counter affidavits. Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur (respondent no.8) has stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit that the proposed merit list was signed by four members including him but the same was cancelled by a resolution taken by the University Selection Committee in its meeting held on 4th February, 2012 in response to strong objection raised by him vide his letter dated 9th January, 2012. Thereafter no combined merit list was prepared and approved by the Selection Committee above.
66. Before the learned Single Judge as well as before us the appellants have once again attempted to argue that the combined merit list was published after taking approval of the Syndicate and hence this Court was not required to interfere with the result so published. While arguing to justify the publication of the result it has also been argued that doctrine of "defacto theory" would come to the rescue of the respondent University and appointees. The learned Single Judge has held that doctrine of defacto theory would not be applicable as the very constitution of the Selection Committee has been found to be bad because it was constituted dehors the provisions of the University Act and the Statutes framed by the Magadh University and against the said Selection Committee there are serious allegations of malafide, favoritism and thus the allegations are serious in nature to the extent of causing reasonable belief and are subject matter of investigation by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.