In Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2013 -SC- Supreme Court restores termination of Physical Training Instructors at Bihar University, citing arbitrary selection process
Justice Hima Kohli & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah [12-10-2023]

Read Order: Nutan Kumari V. B.R.A. Bihar University and Others

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 6, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has restored the termination orders of three Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) at Bihar University, highlighting the arbitrary, discriminatory, and irrational nature of the selection process that led to their appointment.

Briefly stated, in this case, Bihar University had issued an advertisement seeking applications for the position of PTIs in four of its constituent colleges. The appellant and private respondents, submitted their applications in response to this advertisement. Subsequently, they were called for interviews conducted by the Selection Committee. What emerged from this process was that the Selection Committee conducted four separate sets of interviews for each candidate applying to different colleges. However, on the same day but at different times, marked variations in the scores assigned during these interviews were observed for the appellant and respondents No.5 to 8. Consequently, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondents No.5 to 8. The Single Judge, after considering all the petitions filed by the appellant and respondents No.5 to 8, ruled that the selection process was flawed and arbitrary. Displeased with this decision, respondents No.5 to 8 appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench overturned the Single Judge's order, contending that variations in interview scores did not necessarily indicate severe irregularities in the selection process. They believed that all candidates were subject to the same standards during interviews, thus dismissing the appellant's claims.

The division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that the terms and conditions stated in an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates are binding in the selection process. Unless it can be proven that an advertisement was issued in violation of a statute or relevant rules, it must be followed by all participants. Even the Selection Committee lacks the authority to establish separate criteria for selection, as this would be equivalent to creating new selection rules. Once the selection process begins, the criteria outlined in the advertisement for assessing eligible candidates cannot be changed.

The bench further observed that merely applying for a position following an advertisement does not grant a candidate an automatic vested right of selection. Instead, the candidate only gains the right to be considered for selection in strict accordance with the existing rules.

Furthermore, the bench emphasized that once an advertisement has been issued with prescribed selection criteria, there is limited room for deviating from these norms, especially by the Selection Committee, unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that the committee possessed the authority to make such changes.

The bench opined that the Single Judge had diligently examined the entire process undertaken by the Selection Committee and concluded that it was arbitrary, irrational, and should be set aside. The specific issues identified during this review included the Selection Committee's late determination of criteria for assigning marks during interviews, which were not disclosed to the candidates beforehand. Additionally, the Committee independently allocated marks to various academic qualifications, which were not part of the original advertisement. The bench noted that the marks for interviews were set as 30% of the total marks on the same day as the interviews, and multiple interviews were conducted for candidates applying to different colleges, leading to inconsistent assessments. This lack of transparency and consistency in the selection process raised significant concerns, ultimately leading to the High Court's decision to quash the termination orders and grant relief to the PTIs.

Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the bench held that the Single Judge rightly concluded that the entire process adopted by the Selection Committee was vitiated and could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

The court, as a result, found that the challenged judgment could not be upheld and, therefore, it was quashed and set aside. In its place, the judgment of the Single Judge, who had initially ruled in favour of terminating the services of respondents No.5, 7, and 8, was reinstated.

Furthermore, the court ordered the University to establish a Selection Committee to assess the candidature of the appellant and respondents No.5, 7, and 8. The Selection Committee was directed to conduct a single interview for these candidates, irrespective of the number of applications they had submitted for the subject posts. The court emphasized that no separate marks should be allocated for different qualifications possessed by the candidates during the interview, as the University's advertisement did not include such a provision.

The Selection Committee's responsibilities included creating a unified merit list, considering the qualifications and interview performance of the candidates. Subsequently, a seniority list would be generated, and candidates would be assigned to their respective colleges based on this list. The court mandated that this entire process must be completed within eight weeks from the date of the Committee's formation, and the results would be declared with notification to the appellant and respondents No.5, 7, and 8.

With the above observations and directions, the present civil appeals were disposed of. Top of Form