Bihar University Recruitment Controversy: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection Amid Allegations of Bias
The case of Nutan Kumari v. B.R.A. Bihar University & Others highlights critical issues regarding recruitment procedures in public institutions. The Supreme Court scrutinized the selection process for Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) in Bihar and found the process to be marred with irregularities, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and directing a fresh selection process. This case sets a significant precedent for public employment disputes and emphasizes the importance of transparent and fair recruitment.
Background of the Case
The dispute originates from an advertisement issued by B.R.A. Bihar University on July 13, 2008, inviting applications for the recruitment of PTIs in four of its constituent colleges. The advertisement specified three key conditions:
- Each candidate had to apply separately for each college.
- Eligibility criteria required either a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education or a Graduation degree with a Diploma in Physical Education from a recognized institution.
- The age limit was to be as per the Government rules.
The petitioner, Nutan Kumari, along with respondents, applied for the positions and underwent interviews. However, irregularities in the marking process led to allegations of bias and favoritism.
Irregularities in the Selection Process
The selection process raised serious concerns, particularly regarding the interview scores assigned to candidates. The learned Single Judge noted:
“All the five candidates were interviewed for all four colleges by the same Committee on the same day. However, the marks awarded in the interview varied drastically. For instance, the petitioner, Nutan Kumari, received 24 out of 30 in one interview, 16 in another, 12 in the third, and 20 in the fourth. Such erratic variations raise concerns regarding transparency and fairness.”
This inconsistency in interview marking played a crucial role in determining the final selection, leading to allegations of bias.
Investigation and Inquiry Committee Findings
After complaints were filed regarding the selection process, the Chancellor of the University appointed an Inquiry Committee. The committee, after reviewing the process, found severe irregularities and recommended that the appointments be canceled. Subsequently, the Chancellor directed the University to take corrective action, leading to show cause notices being issued to the selected candidates.
The respondents challenged these notices in the High Court. Initially, the learned Single Judge ruled in favor of Nutan Kumari and upheld the cancellation of appointments. However, on appeal, the Division Bench overturned the decision, stating that minor variations in marks did not justify interference.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court took a critical view of the selection process and ruled that the discrepancies were not minor but indicative of a flawed process. The Court emphasized:
“Selection criteria must be transparent and consistent. The Selection Committee does not have the jurisdiction to alter or introduce new criteria without due notification. Any deviation from the advertised process violates the principles of fairness and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of respondent No.6’s eligibility. The candidate was found to be over-aged at the time of application, rendering him ineligible. The Court ruled:
“As per the University’s own admission, the cut-off date for determining age was August 1, 2008. Since respondent No.6 had already exceeded the maximum age limit, his application should have been rejected outright.”
Key Legal Precedents Referenced
The Court cited several landmark judgments to reinforce its ruling:
- Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa – Emphasizing that selection criteria cannot be altered midway through the recruitment process.
- Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan – Stating that any relaxation of selection norms must be explicitly mentioned in the advertisement.
- N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission – Holding that candidates have the right to be considered strictly per the advertised terms.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s ruling and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The key rulings included:
- The appointments of respondents No.5, 7, and 8 were quashed.
- Respondent No.6’s application was deemed ineligible from the outset.
- The University was directed to conduct a fresh selection process with a new Selection Committee.
The Court further instructed that the new selection must adhere strictly to the advertisement’s criteria and ensure transparency in the interview process.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms the principle that recruitment processes in public institutions must be fair, transparent, and free from manipulation. The decision serves as a warning against arbitrary alterations in selection criteria and reinforces the rights of candidates to a just selection process.
By directing a fresh selection, the Supreme Court has ensured that merit prevails over bias, setting a precedent for future recruitment disputes.
Petitioner Name: Nutan Kumari.Respondent Name: B.R.A. Bihar University and Others.Judgment By: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.Place Of Incident: Bihar.Judgment Date: 12-10-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: nutan-kumari-vs-b.r.a.-bihar-univers-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-10-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
