Patna High Court
Mohammad Shabbir @ Md. Shabbir AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate bench upheld the Single Judge’s order quashing the 2019 advertisement and directing fresh selection, finding no perversity or unreasonableness.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of assistant professors, challenged the cancellation of a 2018 advertisement for Assistant Professor posts and the issuance of a fresh 2019 advertisement by Mirza Ghalib College, alleging that the selection committee was not constituted as required by Section 57B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. They sought quashing of the 2019 advertisement, a fresh selection, and various mandamus orders. The Single Judge had held that the selection committee lacked the statutory quorum and quashed the advertisement, directing a fresh process. On appeal, the Division Bench examined whether the Single Judge’s reasoning was perverse, whether the petitioners could challenge the process after participation, and whether the Letters Patent Appeal could disturb the earlier findings. Relying on precedents such as Noor Alam Khan, S.M. Zaheer Alam, and Supreme Court decisions, the bench found no error or unreasonableness in the Single Judge’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the original order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the selection committee for appointment of Assistant Professors was constituted in compliance with Section 57B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
- Whether the cancellation of the 2018 advertisement and issuance of a fresh 2019 advertisement was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of statutory provisions.
- Whether the petitioners, having participated in the selection process, have locus standi to challenge the legality of the selection committee and the advertisement.
- Whether the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is perverse or unreasonable warranting interference on appeal.
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal can be entertained to set aside the findings of the Single Judge in this context.
Legislation cited
- Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 — s. 57, 57A, 57B
Subjects
- selection committee
- Bihar State Universities Act
- minority educational institution
- appointment of assistant professor
- quashing advertisement
- letters patent appeal
- statutory compliance
- arbitrariness
- judicial review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.86 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10935 of 2021
======================================================
1. Mohammad Shabbir @ Md. Shabbir Alam Known to the Petitioner,
Presently Posted as Assistant Professor, in the Department of Persian, Mirza
Ghalib College, Gaya.
2. Mohd Faizan Son of Sarfraz Ahmad Resident of 341, Safarwal, P.O. -
Ambedkar Nagar, P.S. - Tanda, State - Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 224190.
3. Akram Waris Son of Firoz Alam Resident of Holding No. 72, Mohalla -
Mewati Tola, P.O. and P.S. - Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Pin Code - 82115.
4. Ladlay Khan Son of Wali Ahmad Khan Flat No. 201, Galaxy Apartment
Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave Part - 2, Jamia Nagar, New Friend
Colony, Defence Colony, Sought Delhi, P.O. - Okhla, State - New Delhi, Pin
Code - 110025.
5. Abdul Azim Akhtar Son of Md. Yunus Jamia Resident of 62, Ist Floor, Hauz
Rani, Malviya Nagar, South Delhi, State - New Delhi, Pin Code - 110017.
6. Ibrar Khan Son of Alamas Husen Resident of Mohiuddinpur (Aalanagry),
P.O. - Sarai Mamarej, District- Allahabad (U.P.), Pin Code - 221503.
7. Kashif Mansoor Son of Mansoor Alam Resident of Main Road, Panchu
Opposite P.O. - Hisua, District- Nawada, Pin Code - 805103.
8. Sarim Abbas Son of Fazal Abbas Resident of 81/2 Sibtan Road, P.O., P.S.
and District- Pratapgarh (U.P.) Pin Code - 230001.
9. Md. Minhaj Alam S/o Md. Israil R/o Mohalla - New Colony, Road No. 2,
New Karimganj, Gaya, P.S. - Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Special Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Magadh University, Gaya through its Registrar.
4. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Gaya.
5. The Registrar, Magadh University, Gaya.
6. The Principal, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya.
7. Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya through its Secretary, Governing Body
8. The Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya through its Secretary.
9. Mozaffar Ahmad, Son of Khelafat Hussain, Resident of Chatarghat, P.S.-
Chakand, District- Gaya.
10. Shabi Arfeen Shamsi, Known to the Petitioner, aged about not known to the
Petitioners, Presently Posted as Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib
College, Gaya.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
2/31
11. Akeel Ahmad, Male, aged about not known to the Petitioners, Presently
Posted as Assistant Professor, in the Department of Chemistry, Mirza Ghalib
College, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anand Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Kunal Tiwary, Adv.
For the Intervener : Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, Adv.
Ms. Priya, Adv.
Ms. Misha Barti, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Darshi, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Adv.
Mr. Akash Priye, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav Dev, Adv.
For the Res Nos. 6,7& 11: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Girish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Akash Ambuj, Adv.
Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Adv.
For the Res. No. 10 : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the University : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 16-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by
Mohammad Shabbir @ Md. Shabbir Alam and others
challenging the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 10935 of 2021 in quashing the
advertisement dated 06.10.2019 issued by the Secretary,
Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya and directing the
Governing Body to issue fresh advertisement and to constitute a
selection Committee afresh in compliance of the provision of the
Bihar Universities Act and to take further necessary steps in
accordance with law.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3/31
2. The writ petition was filed by Reena Kumari and
Mozaffar Ahmad (respondent no.9) seeking the following
reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of Certiorari, quashing the Advertisement
published in the Hindi daily Hindustan dated
06/10/2019 issued by Secretary, Governing Body,
Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, whereby and
whereunder it has been informed that the
advertisement issued in March 2018 and for
which interview were held in February 2019 and
for which panel was prepared – have been
cancelled by the Governing Body of the College,
without specifying any reason as to what were the
compelling circumstances which warranted
cancellation of the entire selection process, in
which petitioners have succeeded.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature
of Certiorari, quashing the Advertisement
published in the Hindi daily Hindustan on
06/10/2019 for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professor in the Departments of Persian &
Chemistry in Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya,
whereby and whereunder fresh applications have
been invited for appointment by cancelling the
earlier Advertisement issued in March 2018 and
for which interview were held in February 2019,
in completely arbitrary and illegal manner and
for which no justifiable reason much less legally
sustainable reasons have been provided.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ
in nature of mandamus or any other order,
holding and declaring that the entire selection
process has been conducted in the breach of
Section 57-B of Bihar State University Act,1976
as quorum required for selection committee was
totally missing, rendering the constitution of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
4/31
interview board, illegal and arbitrary.
(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus directing and commanding upon the
Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib
College, Gaya to produce the minute of second
round of selection process, which has been kept
by him in iron chest and merit list of same was not
published and after such production be quashed
as same has been prepared ignoring the
experience candidates like petitioner’s.
(v) For issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus directing and commanding upon the
respondent authorities, particularly the Secretary,
Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya to
implement the result of Advertisement issued in
March 2018 and for which interview were held in
February 2019 forthwith– as the selected
candidates have committed no fault and they
fulfill all the requirements as per prevailing UGC
norms and any delay in their appointment would
be per se illegal.
(vi) For issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus, directing upon the Secretary,
Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya to
produce the minutes of Constitution of selection
committee as per section 57 B of the Bihar State
University Act.
(vii) For issuance of appropriate writ
in the nature mandamus or any other appropriate
order, restraining the respondent College from
taking any coercive steps like removal of
Petitioners from the post of Assistant Professor
(Adhoc) on which they are presently working or
termination, during the pendency of the writ
petition.
(viii) To any other relief or relief
which the petitioners may be found entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of the case;
(ix) Cost of this litigation.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
5/31
3. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of
the petitioner on 16.07.2021 wherein in para-7, it is stated as
follows:
“7. That it is further submitted in this
regard that there has been flagrant violation of
section 57 of Bihar State Universities Act in
constituting the selection committee for the
selection process(for Assistant Professor in
subject Urdu) drawn in furtherance of
advertisement dated 06.10.2019 (Annexure-P/9).
It is submitted in this regard that on first date of
interview i.e. 08.02.2021 the subject expert
namely Sayed Irtaza Karim was present and was
instructed to select Mr. Danish. Upon denial to
accept the request made by the Chairman of the
governing body for appointment of his son-in-law
i.e. Ehsanullah Danish, the subject expert was
sent back and on the next date of interview i.e.
20.02.2021 another expert who assured
regarding selection of Ehsanullah Danish was
brought on the selection panel and in this manner
the selection/appointment of Ehsanullah Danish
was done superseding the candidate above him in
the merit panel and also by illegally constituting
second selection committee without approval of
the University/Vice Chancellor in this regard. It is
submitted that the change of subject expert
unilaterally by the institution is bad in law and
dehors the mandates of the universities Act in as
much as section 57B of the Bihar State
Universities Act specifically provides for
constitution of the selection committee. As per the
aforesaid section the in case of minority
educational institution (as in present case) three
persons nominated on behalf of the Chairman of
the College out of list of 5 persons preferably
from the minority community and who have been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
6/31
recommended Vice Chancellor of the University
concerned from the panel of experts proposed by
the Academic Council of the university concerned
(three persons out of them should be subject
experts) shall from the selection committee. It
was not open for the Respondent College, its
governing body or the chairman to replace any
member of the selection panel/selection
committee much less the subject expert without
there names having been proposed by the
Academic Council and who have been
recommended by the Vice Chancellor of the
University. The Respondent Governing Body i.e.
represented through its Secretary i.e. Respondent
No.9 be directed to bring on record the selection
process including the process of finalization of
expert committee which conducted the selection
process/interview on 20.02.2021 so that the
illegalities in the selection process be brought
light and the selection process be quashed by this
Hon’ble Court.”
4. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the
petitioner no. 1 appointed as Assistant Professor for the post of
Chemistry on ad-hoc basis on 02.01.2018 by the orders of the
Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya and
joined the College on 03.01.2018 and started discharging her
duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and the petitioner no. 2
to the writ petition was appointed as Assistant Professor on
05.03.2011 in the Department of Persian Studies by the orders of
Secretary, Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya and
joined on the same day. It is the further case of the petitioners
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
7/31
that the Secretary of the Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College,
Gaya published an advertisement in the month of March, 2018
inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor in the Department of Urdu, Persian, Hindi,
Psychology, Political Science, Economics, History, Philosophy,
Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Mathematics and Commerce and
the applications were supposed to be filed before 26 th March,
2018. In pursuance of such advertisement, the petitioner no. 1
submitted her application for the post of Assistant Professor in
the Department of Chemistry whereas petitioner no. 2 submitted
application for consideration as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Persian Studies and they were having the
requisite qualification as per the prevailing UGC norms for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Both the
petitioners were called for the interview and they were asked to
appear before the Interview Board with all original documents
for verification.
5. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that
upon due completion of the interview on 24.02.2019 for the post
of Assistant Professor, final merit list was published taking into
account the marks of academic qualifications, marks of
interview and in the list of 20 candidates, who applied for the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
8/31
post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry, the
petitioner no.1 Reena Kumari secured second position with a
total marks of 88 and on the basis of performance before the
interview board and the academic marks including publications
and teaching experience, the panel of experts recommended her
name for the post of Assistant Professor in order of merit for the
Department of Chemistry.
6. Similarly, upon due completion of the interview
held on 17.02.2019 for the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Persian studies, final merit list was published
taking into account the marks of academic qualifications and
marks of interview. Out of 9 candidates, petitioner no.2
Mozaffar Ahamd, secured fourth position and panel of experts
submitted the report on the basis of the performance before the
interview board and the academic marks including publications
and teaching experience for the post of Assistant Professor in the
order of merit.
7. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that no
appointments were made as per the aforesaid final results and it
was kept pending and the petitioners were hopeful that
considering their position in merit list and number of vacancies
in the respective departments, they would be appointed as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
9/31
Assistant Professors. All of a sudden, another advertisement,
was published on 06.10.2019 and fresh applications were invited
for the post of Assistant Professors in the respective departments
from eligible candidates and in the same advertisement, it was
mentioned that the advertisement, which was issued on March,
2018 for which the interview was held on February, 2019 was
cancelled by the Governing Body of the college due to
unavoidable reasons. The petitioners’ case is that no reason has
been assigned for cancelling the previous round of selection
process, save and except mentioning in the aforesaid
advertisement that it was cancelled on account of unavoidable
reasons. It is contended that the College was involved in
absolute illegally and arbitrariness in cancelling the previous
advertisement and selection process after conducting interview
and preparing the merit list in order of merit.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that the
Selection Committee which consisted as members of interview
board, did not meet the criteria that has been stipulated in
Section 57B of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’) and the constitution was in
complete defiance of the statutory norms and regulations and the
quorum for selection panel/interview board was an absolutely
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
10/31
eye wash and the Selection Committee consisted of individuals,
who were not competent to be the members of the panel.
According to the petitioners, the Selection Committee selected
certain individuals, who happened to be the blue eyed persons of
the Secretary, Governing Body of the College and they have
been appointed in the Department of Chemistry and Persian as
Assistant Professors contrary to all norms and regulations of
UGC. According to the petitioners, the Selection Committee
constituted for the purpose of second selection did not fulfill the
requirements of Section 57B of Act, 1976 as neither Principal of
the College nor the Head of the Department of the concerned
Department nor the three members recommended by the
Academic Council of the College and approved by the Vice
Chancellor were present as the part of the interview board and
therefore, any selection made in contravention of the statutory
prescription was liable to be quashed.
9. After issuance of notice, counter affidavit has
been filed by the University, who were respondent nos. 3 to 5 in
the writ petition. In paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that large number of complaints were received against the
selection process pursuant to which the Professor In-charge and
the Secretary of the Governing Body were asked to submit their
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
11/31
responses vide letter dated 26.06.2021. The College sent its
reply dated 03.07.2021, which was found to be vague, evasive
and fact deficit. The Enquiry Committee vide letter dated
13.07.2021 directed the Secretary of the Governing Body and
Professor In-charge of the College to send the reply of the 20-
point questionnaire seeking details of the appointment process,
composition of Selection Committee and other relevant details,
but the Secretary of the Governing Body and the Professor In-
charge of the College did not provide any information and an
apparent and conscious effort was made to mislead the Enquiry
Committee and to conceal the facts. The relevant records like
tabulation sheet, proof of proper dispatch of appointment letters,
basis of selection of Experts etc. were not provided by the
College and thereby making the process of appointment more
suspicious and questionable. No convincing explanation has
been given by the College for sudden cancellation of the
interview for Urdu and the process of rescheduling.
The University also stated in the counter affidavit
that the posts were first advertised on 26.03.2018 and
subsequent thereto, interview was held and the panel was
prepared on the basis of academic record and performance in the
viva voce test. However, no appointment was made from the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
12/31
said panel and it was abruptly cancelled without assigning any
reason. The sudden cancellation of the panel was still a mystery.
10. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that
the Selection Committee comprising of a nominee of the
Governing Body (Chairman), Principal of the College, Head of
the concerned Department, and three Subject Experts from the
panel of five names from the list approved by the University’s
Academic Council and duly recommended by the Vice
Chancellor, as mandated by Act 1976, was not constituted. It is
not clear as to how the experts were selected and apparently no
objective and transparent method was adopted in the selection of
experts. In the absence of any transparent mechanism, the
selection of experts is itself an eye wash.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Selection Committee was not duly constituted and was
constituted in utter violation of the provisions contained in the
Act, 1976 and there was glaring anomaly in the constitution of
the Selection Committee, which includes the absence of
principal, non-inclusion of the respective head of the
Departments, arbitrary selection of the subject experts in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 57B of Act,
1976 and therefore, the entire selection process is illegal and has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
13/31
been grossly manipulated to favour the chosen one and there are
enough evidence to confirm the opaque, non-transparent and
coherent process followed by the management of the College
and thereby the core process of appointment is open to judicial
scrutiny.
11. Counter affidavit has also been filed by
respondent nos. 1 and 2, by the officers of the Higher Education.
Similarly counter affidavit was filed on behalf
of respondent no. 9, the Secretary of the Governing Body of the
College wherein it was highlighted that though the writ
petitioners participated in the first round of the interview held on
24.02.2019 and 17.02.2019 respectively, but it was conducted by
two experts, which was in complete violation of Section 57B of
the Act, 1976 and therefore, such Expert Committee members
had no jurisdiction to make any recommendation in favour of
the petitioners. It is the further case of the College that the
respondent nos. 10 and 11, who were selected and appointed
pursuant to the interviews held in the month of February, 2021
by a body of the experts, which is justified, valid and lawful. It
is further stated that Mr. Shabi Arfeen Shamsi was the Chairman
and Mr. Shujaat Ali Khan was the Member; Mr. Jalaluddin
Ansari was a Member; who was the Professor In-charge and In-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
14/31
charge Principal of the Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya, Professor
Nasimul Hoda was from Jamia Maliia Islamiya University, New
Delhi was the expert and Professor Md. Rafique from Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh was the other expert, which
comprised of the five members Selection Committee for the
chemistry subject. Similarly for the five members selection
Committee of the Persian subject, Mr. Shabi Arfeen Shamsi was
the Chairman and Mr. Shujaat Ali Khan was the Member; Mr.
Jalaluddin Ansari was the Member, who was the Professor In-
charge and In-charge Principal of the Mirza Ghalib College,
Gaya; Professor Nasimul Hoda was from Jamia Mallia Islamiya
University, New Delhi was the expert and Professor Md. Usman
Ghani from Aligarh Muslim University and Professor Abdul
Halim from Jamia Millia University, New Delhi were the other
experts. It is further stated that the writ petitioners have
deliberately and willfully suppressed the relevant and material
facts that the interview in which they participated on 24.02.2019
and 17.02.2019 was conducted by a two member expert
committee, which was in complete violation of Section 57B of
the Act, 1976. It is further stated that no unsuccessful candidate
can have any grievance with the selection process of February,
2021 and appointment of respondent nos. 10 and 11.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
15/31
12. Counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of
respondents no. 6, 7 and 8 by Professor-in-charge and In-charge
Principal of the College, which was almost identical like the one
that was filed by the College.
Supplementary Affidavit was filed on behalf of
the petitioners by petitioner no.1 and they have again reiterated
that the constitution of the Selection Committee was made in
flagrant violation of Section 57 of the Act, 1976.
13. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order
has been pleased to hold as follows:
“10.16. Thus, from the above provisions, it
would transpire that Section 57A(1) dealt with
appointment of Teachers of affiliated colleges
not maintained by the State Government by a
Selection Committee, Section 57A (2) dealt with
the quorum of the Selection Committee and the
manner in which it has to make its
recommendation. The newly added Section 57B
(by the Amendment Act, 2007) provided that the
Selection Committee constituted shall be bound
by the procedure of selection prescribed by the
Statute to be framed by the University. This view
has recently been affirmed by a Division Bench
of this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2023
passed in C.W.J.C. No.14793 of 2017 (Noor
Alam Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors.).
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
16/31
10.17. It is pertinent to point out here that in the
case of Noor Alam (supra), a challenge was
made to the vires of Section 57 (A) of the Act and
the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court and it has been
held in para-15, which is reproduced herein
below:
“15. As seen above, though the constitution
of the Selection Committee is predominantly
of persons from college itself, nevertheless by
introducing as many as six nominated
persons in the Selection Committee (under
the newly amended section 57B) and further
by making the decision of the Governing
Body of the minority colleges subject to the
approval of the said Selection Committee, in
the opinion of the Court, the same infringes
with the rights of the minorities (as provided
under Art 30) to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. It
may also be noted here that while section
57A(4) which deals with the teachers in
affiliated colleges talks about ‘consultation’
with the Selection Committee, section 57A(5)
which deals with the teachers in the minority
colleges talks about actions being taken in
their case by the governing body with the
‘approval’ of the Selection Committee. In the
opinion of the Court, by use of the word
‘approval’ in sec 57A(5) the intention could
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
17/31
not have been to violate the constitutional
provision as contained in Art 30, but it would
be an effective consultation as contemplated
under sec 57A(4). Thus in the opinion of this
Court the word ‘approval’ will have to be
read down accordingly.”
10.18. On bare perusal of the judgment passed
in the case of Noor Alam (supra), it appears
that the Hon’ble Division Bench has nowhere
said that the selection committee will not be
constituted as per the mandate of Section 57B of
the Act, rather the University has been given the
responsibility to verify the qualifications of
members of the selection committee and the
selected teachers.
10.19. Prior to the judgment passed in the case
of Noor Alam (supra), in the case of S.M.
Zaheer Alam Vs. National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) and others (C.W.J.C.
No.10283 of 2019) vide judgment dated
14.10.2020, the Division of this Court has also
considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter,
after considering catena decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para-25 thereof
has been pleased to hold as under:
“Section 57B of the Bihar State Universities
Act, 1976, is the impugned provision having
been challenged on the ground that this
provision infringes upon the right of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
18/31
minorities to administer the institution as
they cannot ask the minority institution as to
whether the selection has been done on the
guidelines provided under Section 57B of the
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. In the
case of The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College
Society and another (supra) it has been held
that minority institution has a right to select
the persons of their choice and it includes the
constitution of the management. The
constitution of Selection Committee is one of
the most important facets and concomitant of
running the administration of private
institution. So, the University under the
regulatory provision would ensure that the
members of the selection Committee did have
requisite qualification but, cannot control the
activities of the management of the
institution. So, Section 57B of the University
Act should be read down in the manner that
University Commission will have to verify as
to whether those who have been members of
the Selection Committee, satisfy the proper
qualification as has been provided under
Section 57B of the Bihar State Universities
Act 1976, to ensure that a fair procedure has
been followed in the matter of selection of
teachers and it has also to be ensured that
the teacher who have been appointed possess
the necessary and proper qualification
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
19/31
prescribed by the University in order to
maintain the teaching standard of the college
to ensure that the students who are being
taught by those teachers, must be able to
compete with the products of other
institutions. So, the letter dated 27.04.2019 is
to be read down in the manner that the
college will be obliged to produce the records
in order to show that the persons who were
the member in the Selection Committee are
qualified persons and those persons who
have been selected as teachers are
possessing the necessary and requisite
qualification. The University cannot interfere
with the management of the institution but,
they have authority to regulate.”
10.20. On careful perusal of the above said
judgment, it is apparent that the Hon'ble
Division bench has nowhere said that selection
committee will not be constituted as per the
mandate of Section 57B of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976. Rather the University has
been given the responsibility to verify the
qualifications of members of the selection
committee and the selected teachers.
10.21. It would not be out of place to state that
none of the respondents has either whispered a
single word during course of argument or
brought on record that the Selection Committee
of the college concerned was constituted in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
20/31
compliance of the provisions enshrined in
Section 57A and 57B in Bihar State Universities
Act.
10.22. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be
clarified that if the minority institution has a
better candidate available than the one
nominated under a regulatory regime, the
institution would certainly be within its rights to
reject the nomination made by the authorities but
if the person nominated for imparting education
is otherwise better qualified and suitable, any
rejection of such nomination by the minority
institution would never help such institution.
10.23. From the above discussions, it is evident
that in case of Minority Institution, Chairman
of the College has right to nominate, three
expert out of the list of five persons preferably
from Minority Community and who have been
recommended by the Vice-Chancellor from the
panel of experts proposed by the Academic
Council of the University. Therefore, the
Governing Body of the College has vital role in
constitution of Selection Committee. According
to the Act, the University has only role to
provide a list of qualified experts out of whom
the Chairman of the Governing Body will
nominate from expert and i.e. the preferably of
Minority Community. Thus, even after
introduction of new Section 57A and 57B in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
21/31
Bihar State Universities Act, the Selection
Committee is predominantly of persons from the
college itself. In the present case, the Selection
Committee was constituted and the entire
selection process has been conducted in
complete breach of Section 57 B of the Act as
quorum required for Selection Committee was
totally missing, rendering the constitution of
interview board, illegal and arbitrary.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
is not sustainable in the eye of law, particularly, in view of the
ratio as has been laid down in the case of S. M. Zaheer Alam
through its Secretary Dr. S. M. Ali Imam Vs. National
Council for Teacher Education, through its Chairperson &
Others, reported in, 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 70.
It is the further contended that since the petitioners
participated in the selection process and they (writ petitioners)
become unsuccessful, they have no right to challenge the
selection on the ground of constitution of selection committee.
15. Section 57B of Act, 1976 reads as follows:
"57B. Constitution of Selection Committee.
(1) The Selection Committee for appointment to
the posts of Assistant Professor, Principal in
affiliated colleges shall be constituted by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
22/31
University as follows:-
(i) The Chairman of the governing body of the
college or the person nominated by the
governing body, who being one of its members,
shall be the Chairman of the Selection
Committee.
(ii) Principal of the College.
(iii) Head of the department of the faculty
concerned in the College.
(iv) Three experts, not below the rank of
professor and two out of them should be
experts of the subject, shall be nominated by
the Vice-chancellor of the concerned
University. In case of such colleges, which have
been notified/declared as minority educational
institution, three persons nominated on behalf
of the Chairman of the College who shall be
from the list of five persons preferably from the
minority community and who have been
recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the
University concerned from the panel of experts
proposed by the Academic Council of the
University concerned and three persons out of
them should be subject experts.
(v) The Governing body of the College may
nominate two such subject experts who are not
connected with that college and those persons
have been recommended by the Vice-
Chancellor out of the panel of Subject Experts
approved by the Academic Council of the
University Concerned.
(vi) An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/
Minority/Women/Differently-abled categories,
if any of candidates representing these
categories it the applicant, to be nominated by
the Vice-Chancellor, if any of the above
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
23/31
members of the selection committee do not
belong to that category.
(vii) presence of five members of the Selection
Committee, which shall include three subject
experts, shall form the quorum for the meeting or
the Selection Committee.”
16. In the case of S. M. Zaheer Alam (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold as
follows:
“25. Section 57B of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976, is the impugned provision
having been challenged on the ground that this
provision infringes upon the right of the
minorities to administer the institution as they
cannot ask the minority institution as to whether
the selection has been done on the guidelines
provided under Section 57B of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976. In the case of The
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and
another (supra) it has been held that minority
institution has a right to select the persons of
their choice and it includes the constitution of
the management. The constitution of Selection
Committee is one of the most important facets
and concomitant of running the administration
of private institution. So, the University under
the regulatory provision would ensure that the
members of selection Committee did have
requisite qualification but, cannot control the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
24/31
activities of the management of the institution.
So, Section 57B of the University Act should be
read down in the manner that University
Commission will have to verify as to whether
those who have been members of the Selection
Committee, satisfy the proper qualification as
has been provided under Section 57B of the
Bihar State Universities Act 1976, to ensure that
a fair procedure has been followed in the matter
of selection of teachers and it has also to be
ensured that the teacher who have been
appointed possess the necessary and proper
qualification prescribed by the University in
order to maintain the teaching standard of the
college to ensure that the students who are being
taught by those teachers, must be able to
compete with the products of other institutions.
So, the letter dated 27.04.2019 is to be read
down in the manner that the college will be
obliged to produce the records in order to show
that the persons who were the member in the
Selection Committee are qualified persons and
those persons who have been selected as
teachers are possessing the necessary and
requisite qualification. The University cannot
interfere with the management of the institution
but, they have authority to regulate.
26. In such view of the matter, the
impugned letter no. C/IC/5895/19 dated
27.04.2019 is modified to the extent that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
25/31
petitioner-institution will satisfy the University
only to the extent that the persons, who were in
the Selection Committee, were holding the
requisite qualification and those who have been
selected in different streams are possessing the
necessary qualification in order to maintain the
academic standard, so that the students of the
institution can compete with the rest of the
students coming out from different institutions.”
17. Putting emphasis on the observation made on
this particular paragraph, the learned counsel for the appellants
contended that since the members of the selection committee
had their requisite qualification, merely because their names
were not recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the University
from the panel of experts, it cannot be said to be an illegality. It
is further contended that since a fair procedure has been
followed in the case in hand and the members of the selection
committee are the qualified persons and they have adopted the
due process, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified
in quashing the advertisement, in question, and directing for
fresh selection.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the College
has supported the stand taken by the appellants in the LPA and
placed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
26/31
Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs. Gnaneshwary
Dushyant Kumar Shah & Ors. [SLP(C) No. 27710 of 2025],
which was decided 19.01.2026. In the said case, it was observed
that the candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the
eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her
participation in the process of selection and he participated in
the interview and when he was declared unsuccessful in the
interview, he challenged the process of selection for the post in
question in a writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to hold in paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment that the
criteria for the interview and qualifying marks were expressly
stated and the candidate applied, appeared and took her chance.
Only after being declared unsuccessful, she sought to invoke an
entirely different regulatory regime. It was further observed that
it is the settled principle that a candidate having participated in
the process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge the
Rules of the game after being declared unsuccessful1.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no.10 submitted that though Reena Kumari and Mozaffar
Ahmad (respondent no.9) were the writ petitioners, but so far as
Reena Kumari is concerned, vide order dated 13.05.2025, her
name has been deleted from the array of parties, as she has been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
27/31
selected in a different University. The learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17, wherein in paragraph 17 it has
been held as follows:
“17. However, we must differentiate from this
principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to
participate in the selection process only accepts
the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in
it. In a situation where a candidate alleges
misconstruction of statutory rules and
discriminating consequences arising therefrom,
the same cannot be condoned merely because a
candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional
scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any
manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate
may not have locus to assail the incurable
illegality or derogation of the provisions of the
Constitution, unless he/she participates in the
selection process.”
20. The provision under Section 57B of Act, 1976
makes it very clear as to how the Selection Committee is to be
constituted. So far as the three experts are concerned, it is
specifically mentioned therein that not only those three experts
should not be below the rank of Professor, but two of them
should be expert on the particular subject and they are to be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
28/31
nominated by the Vice-chancellor of the concerned University.
So far as Minority Educational Institutions are concerned, three
persons nominated on behalf of the Chairman of the College
from the list of five persons preferably from the Minority
Community and who has been recommended by the Vice-
chancellor of the University concerned from the panel of experts
proposed by the Academic Council of the University concerned
shall be experts.
21. From the counter affidavit filed by the College,
it is apparent that the name of three experts were not
recommended by the Vice-chancellor of the University. The
expert list has not been furnished by the College to the
University and it seems that the College has selected the three
experts on its own, which appears to be in gross violation of the
provision under Section 57B of the Act, 1976, even if it is a
Minority Education Institution.
22. The principle, which has been laid down in the
case of Meeta Sahai (supra) is very clear that there is no
complete bar for a candidate, who has agreed to participate in
the selection process prohibiting him to challenge the selection,
if there is illegality in it.
23. We are of the view that if this process is allowed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
29/31
to continue and the College is given a complete leeway, even if
it is a Minority Educational Institution and the provision is
deviated and the persons are selected, as the experts, even if
their names are not recommended by the Vice-chancellor, then it
would open the floodgate of arbitrariness and there is every
possibility of biasness in the selection procedure.
Therefore, in view of the sacrosanct statutory
provision available, it is required to be followed in its letter and
spirit. Even in the case of S. M. Zaheer Alam case (supra)
reliance on which has been placed by the learned counsel for the
appellants, there also it is underscored that the constitution of
the selection committee is one of the most important facets and
concomitant of running the administration of private institution.
The University under the regulatory provision would ensure that
the members of the selection Committee did have requisite
qualification. In the case in hand, the names of the persons have
been given in the counter affidavit, who have been stated to be
the experts in the interview, which was conducted, however, no
documentary proof has been annexed thereto.
24. After going through the analysis made by the
learned Single Judge, we do not find that the reasoning, which
has been assigned by the learned Single Judge is any way
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
30/31
perverse or palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any
particular provision of law.
25. A Letters Patent Appeal, is an intra-court appeal,
whereunder a Letters Patent Bench sitting as a Court of
Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same
jurisdiction, as was vested in the Single Judge. In such appellate
jurisdiction, the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of
Error and this appellate jurisdiction is really a corrective
jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct errors, if any
made.
In the case of B. Venkatamuni Vs C.J. Ayodhya
Ram Singh & Ors. reported in, 2006 (13) SCC 449, it is held
that in an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly
may be entitled to re-apprise both questions of fact and law, but
entertainment of a letters patent appeal is discretionary and
normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist
cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the
learned Single Judge.
In the case of Management of Narendra and
Company Private Limited Vs. Workmen of. Narendra and
Company, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, it has been held that
unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding
Patna High Court L.P.A No.86 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
31/31
of the Single Judge is perverse, it shall not disturb the same.
Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there
should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
The Letters Patent Appeal provides an internal
check and balance ensuring judicial oversight and protecting the
citizens rights by allowing for a more thorough review of a
Single Judge decision.
26. After going through the impugned judgment, we
are of the humble view that there is no perversity or
unreasonableness in the impugned order and therefore, we are
not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/anjani-
AFR/NAFR N/A
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…