Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. As against these submissions, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1, submitted that the Service Commission Act created the Service Commission and it was a body corporate as clarified by Section 2 of the Service Commission Act Itself. It was an inter-State body corporate by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the Re-organisation Act and the argument that it was not an inter-State body corporate was not sustainable. It was further submitted that the State of Jharkhand had adapted the Bihar Universities Act and Sections 57 and 58 of that Act enjoined the selection and appointment through the medium of the Service Commission and since the Bihar Universities Act had been adapted, the Service/ Commission had the jurisdiction to make recommendations based on the original request or requisition made by the Siddhu Kanhu University. The Commission was entitled to consider whether the request by the Siddhu Kanhu University to withdraw its earlier request for making the advertisement and making the selection was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant provisions of the Act and on finding that it was so based, to ignore that withdrawal of the request and to proceed to make the recommendation after completing the process of selection. The order of the Governor stopping the acceptance of th'e recommendation by the Service Commission was illegal and inconsistent with the provisions of the Bihar Re-organisation Act and hence the learned Single Judge was justified in granting relief to the writ petitioner. As regards the plea that the application of the writ petitioner in response to the advertisement was not in time, counsel submitted that no such plea had been raised by the University before the learned Single Judge and such a plea was not raised even in the memorandum of appeal with the result that the writ petitioner did not have an opportunity to set out a more detailed case on that aspect. It was submitted that the writ petitioner had sent an advance copy of his application to the Service Commission within the time prescribed and since his application had to be routed through the proper channel, the original application was later forwarded by the Magadh University in which he was employed and the Court had to consider the case of the writ petitioner based on the copy of the application sent by the writ petitioner to the Service Commission and if it is so considered, the application has to be found to be in time. Learned counsel for the University Commission submitted thai the University Service Commission found that the Siddhu Kanhu University had sought to withdraw the request it had earlier made on a misconception and hence it decided to go ahead with the selection process and it was justified in doing so in view of Sections 84, 86, 91 and the other provisions, of the Reorganisation Act. He also submitted that the argument that this was not an interstate body corporate within the meaning of Section 66 of the Act was not tenable since the Service Commission became an inter-State body corporate by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the Re-organisation Act.

9. It is clear that the University which made the request to the Service Commission to select candidates for certain posts, had the right to withdraw that request at least before the process of selection was completed. Here, even the interview had not taken place when the University withdrew its request for making a selection. A process of selection is not complete before the list is prepared. In the absence of any provision in the Service Commission Act enabling the Service Commission to ignore the withdrawal of request by a person who made the request, the Service Commission was bound to accede to that request and not to proceed further with the selection process. At best, the Commission could have claimed the expenses from the University for the steps it had already taken pursuant to the original request made by the University, if entitled under the law. We specifically asked counsel for the University Commission whether there was any provision under any law governing it, which enabled it to ignore the withdrawal of the request by the University that made the original request or which conferred a power on the Service Commission to sit in judgment over the reasons for withdrawal referred to by the University, while withdrawing the request. Counsel frankly submitted that there was no provision. But he submitted that on finding that the basis on which the request was sought to be withdrawn by the University was not tenable according to the Commission, the Service Commission bona fide continued the selection process. Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the reasons given by the University for withdrawing its request to the Service Commission were justiceable and if this Court were to find that the reason given by the University for withdrawing its request were untenable, this Court was entitled to uphold the action of the Service Commission in proceeding with the selection in spite of withdrawal of the request. Counsel pointed out that the learned Single Judge had taken the view that the reason given by the University for withdrawing its request was invalid and the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001 was also unsustainable and if the Court were to agree with that proposition, the action of the Service Commission could be upheld. We find considerable difficulty in accepting this submission of counsel for the writ petitioner. When the University which had made the original request for selection, withdrew that request for whatever be the reason, the Service Commission was bound to stop the process and was not entitled to, proceed as if there has been no such withdrawal, or to proceed to decide for itself that the withdrawal was improper. Whether at the stage at which the selection process had reached, any of the candidates who had applied had a right, to challenge such action of the Service Commission stopping the process or of the University withdrawing its request is a different matter altogether. Even if such right existed in a candidate who had responded to the original advertisement, the Service Commission certainly could not take upon itself an adjudicatory role while dealing with the request of the University not to proceed further, and its communication recalling its original request for making the selection. Moreover, in this case, considerable problems had arisen after the creation of the State of Jharkhand, adaptation of the Bihar Universities Act with effect from 13.12.2000 and the substitution of the words "Bihar" and "Bihar State" by "Jharkhand" and "Jharkhand State" and the non-adaptation of the Service Commission Act, 1987 and Section 2(3) of that act covering only Universities governed by the Patna University Act and the Bihar State Universities Act, as to whether the process of selection at the instance of the Service Commission could continue. The Commission also recognized the problem as is clear from its letter dated 15.1.2001. In that context, the Governor had also issued the notification dated 10.9.2001 and the Chancellor had also issued an order dated 5.10.2001 indicating to the Universities in the State of Jharkhand that the recommendations of the Service Cora-mission were not binding on the Universities and such recommendations need not be recognized. Therefore, it could not also be said that the University acted without bona fides when it withdrew the request to the Service Commission for making selection to several posts including the post of the Registrar. Apart from the fact that the Service Commission had no right to si( in judgment over the withdrawal of the request by the University, it also appears to us that the Commission erred in ignoring the withdrawal by the University on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In our view, the learned Single Judge was in error in proceeding to uphold the action of the Service Commission in ignoring the withdrawal of the request by the University and in proceeding to make recommendations after completing the process. It is also seen that the Service Commission made the recommendation on 6.3.2002, almost six months after the date of interview in spite of being apprised of the position arising out of the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001 that of the Chancellor dated 5.10.2001 and the relevant provisions of the Re-organisation Act. We are of the view that since the University had withdrawn its request for making the selection, the Service Commission had lost the right to proceed with the selection process and its action subsequent to the withdrawal is unsustainable and certainly not binding on the appellant University or the State of Jharkhand. On this short ground these appeals are liable to be allowed and the decision of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.