Patna High Court
Subhash Chandra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court ordered an enquiry by the Vice‑Chancellor into the qualifications and fairness of the appointment, without setting aside the appointment itself.
Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Chandra Yadav, challenged the appointment of respondent No.7 as Principal of Anooplal Yadav Mahavidyalaya, alleging that the selection violated the qualification criteria prescribed under Section 57(B) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, including lower marks, lack of required postgraduate percentage, age limit breach, and alleged nepotistic bias because the Chairman of the selection committee was a cousin of the appointee. The petitioner relied on earlier judgments (C.W.J.C. No. 2463 of 2011 and L.P.A. No. 1225 of 2016) to argue that the process was not fair. The respondents contended that the appointment complied with the advertisement and statutory provisions and sought an adjournment to file a counter‑affidavit. The Court, after hearing counsel, directed the Vice‑Chancellor of B.N. Mandal University to investigate the respondent’s eligibility and the impartiality of the selection process within eight weeks and to issue a reasoned order. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of respondent No.7 as Principal complied with the qualification and procedural requirements of Section 57(B) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
- Whether the selection process was tainted by bias or nepotism due to familial relations between the Chairman of the selection committee and the appointee.
- Whether the court should set aside the appointment or direct an enquiry into the matter.
Legislation cited
- Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 — s. 57(B)
Subjects
- appointment
- principal
- selection process
- bias
- nepotism
- qualification criteria
- Section 57(B)
- Bihar State Universities Act
- university governance
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17513 of 2025
======================================================
Subhash Chandra Yadav Son of Kunj Bihari Yadav, resident of -
Raghunathpur Dakshin, Ward No.03, Near Bank of Baroda, Raghunathpur,
District- Araria, preasently posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of
Geography, Anooplal Yadav College, Triveniganj, Supoul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
4. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
5. The Secretary, Governing Body of Anooplal Yadav Mahavidyalaya,
Triveniganj, Supaul.
6. The Chairman, Selection Committee of Anooplal Yadav Mahavidyalaya,
Triveniganj, Supaul.
7. The Principal, Anooplal Yadav Mahavidyalaya, Triveniganj, Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP-23
Mr. Meera Singh, AC to GP-23
For the Priv. Resp. 5 to 7: Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Adv.
For the University : Mr. Ashar Mustafa, Adv.
Ms. Anita Kumari, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 03-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
letter no. 8725 dated 06.08.2025 issued under the signature of
respondent no. 5 by which the respondent no. 7 has been
appointed as Principal of the College. The petitioner also sought
quashing of Memo no. G.S.(744/25)-1043/25 dated 07.08.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.17513 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
by which the University has granted approval to the order of
appointment of respondent no. 7 as Principal of the College in
question.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing
the impugned order submitted that the revised statute
prescribing qualification and procedure for selection of
Teachers, including Principals for affiliated Colleges, not
maintained by the State Government, as contemplated under
Section 57(B) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 clearly
prescribes the calculation of the marks as per the qualification of
a candidate. Referring to the afore-noted statute, it is submitted
that as per the comparative details of the petitioner and
respondent no. 7, the petitioner has secured 73 marks, whereas
the respondent no. 7 got 42 marks. Besides the aforesaid facts, it
is further contended that the respondent no. 7 also having not
possessing 55% in Post Graduate in terms with the U.G.C.
regulation, and further he has exceeded the upper age limit of
sixty years and lacks a satisfactory academic record. Besides the
aforesaid fact, the Chairman of the Selection Committee was
cousin of the respondent no. 7 and, as such, the entire selection
process was tainted with malafide and biasness.
4. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has
been placed on a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17513 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
C.W.J.C. No. 2463 of 2011 where the Court after having found
that one of the selected candidate was the son of Mukhiya and
the selected candidate happened to be brother-in-law of the
Panchayat Secretary; held that the selection made on the post of
Panchayat Teacher is not above the board and accordingly,
upheld the direction of the Appellate Authority to hold a fresh
exercise of counseling.
5. A decision of the learned Division Bench of this
Court passed in L.P.A. No. 1225 of 2016 has also been placed
before this Court to bolster the afore-noted submission, where
the Court held that the participation of the husband of the
appellant in the selection process where his wife is one of the
candidate, cannot be said to be fair process of selection.
6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the
University as well as the learned Advocate for the respondent
nos. 5 to 7 refuting the aforenoted contention submitted that the
order impugned has been passed in terms with the prescriptions
of the advertisement as well as the statutes governing the
appointment of the Principal of the College. However, to
support the aforesaid contention, they sought a short
adjournment to ensure filing of the counter affidavit.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the petitioner as noted hereinabove, this
Patna High Court CWJC No.17513 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
Court deems it fit and proper to direct the Vice Chancellor of the
University to look into the matter with regard to the requisite
qualification and eligibility of the respondent no. 7 to hold the
post of Principal of the College in question, in terms with the
statutes and the notification referred hereinabove, and further to
get the enquiry conducted as to whether the respondent nos. 5
and 6 are cousin of respondent no. 7 and the entire selection
process for appointment to the post of Principal have carried out
in a fair and impartial manner.
8. The entire exercise must be completed preferably
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. It is expected that the Vice Chancellor of the B.N.
Mandal University, Madhepura shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order to the averments made in the writ petition and
the contentions noted hereinabove.
10. The writ petition stands disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U
Checking your session…