Case Background
The dispute arose from the appointment and later reappointment of the petitioner as Finance Officer of Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Mithapur, Patna.
Initially, the University issued Appointment Advertisement No. 1/2019 for the post of Finance Officer. After a selection process involving a Screening Committee and a Selection Committee, the Executive Council of the University, in its 40th meeting dated 18.06.2020, resolved to appoint the petitioner as Finance Officer for a period of five years. An appointment letter dated 18.06.2020 was issued, which also stated that he would be eligible for reappointment.
The selection was made on the basis of the petitioner’s educational qualifications, his performance in interview, and his work experience, which the Selection Committee found satisfactory. The petitioner claims he had more than five years of administrative experience on posts equivalent to Assistant Registrar, including experience as ODS (Examination) at Aryabhatta Knowledge University.
The petitioner’s appointment was later questioned through a Public Interest Litigation registered as CWJC No. 19565 of 2021. By order dated 06.01.2022, that PIL was disposed of with a direction to approach the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor examined the matter and found the appointment legal and valid under the Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act and the Statutes.
The order of the Vice Chancellor was subsequently challenged in CWJC No. 9106 of 2024. That writ petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.06.2024. Thereafter, the matter was brought before the Hon’ble Chancellor, before whom the University continued to defend and justify the appointment of the petitioner.
Meanwhile, upon completion of the first five-year term, the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 14.06.2025 under the chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor, decided to reappoint the petitioner. This was done invoking Section 7(b) of Chapter-I of the University Statutes, and the reappointment was notified under Memo No. 2922 dated 14.06.2025 for the next five years or till his superannuation, whichever was earlier.
The present controversy started when one Santosh Kumar Sharma questioned the eligibility of the petitioner’s appointment. Following this, the University Court (referred to as “The Court” of the University), in its 28th meeting dated 26.08.2025, decided to publish a fresh advertisement for selection and appointment to the post of Finance Officer.
This decision of 26.08.2025 was challenged before the Patna High Court. The petitioner also sought quashing of Appointment Advertisement No. 3/2025 dated 27.09.2025 issued for the Finance Officer post, and letter No. 5128 dated 27.09.2025. In this letter, the University informed the petitioner that he did not possess the requisite qualification under the Statutes, that a fresh advertisement was being issued, and that he would continue to discharge duties as Finance Officer till a fresh appointment was made.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, heard senior counsel for both sides and examined the statutory provisions and the previous steps taken by the University authorities.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that his appointment and reappointment followed due process. Counsel pointed out that for Advertisement No. 1/2019, the Screening Committee had found his application in order. The Selection Committee consisted of the Vice Chancellor, nominee of the Chancellor, a State Government nominee, two members of the Executive Council nominated by the Vice Chancellor, and one member from SC/ST/OBC with academic interest nominated by the State Government. This committee adjudged the petitioner eligible based on his qualifications, work experience and interview performance.
On this basis, the Executive Council decided on 18.06.2020 to appoint him as Finance Officer for five years. It was emphasised that there were no objections about his eligibility at that time or during the first term of his service.
The petitioner’s side stressed that Advertisement No. 1/2019 prescribed, among other criteria, a minimum of five years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or equivalent, or experience as an officer in the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, or Bihar Accounts Service, or Bihar Finance Service. According to the petitioner, he satisfied these experience requirements and also held a B.E. (Mechanical) and Master’s degree in M.Sc. (Engineering). His prior work as ODS (Examination) in the same University was said to make him fully qualified.
It was further argued that after satisfactorily completing his initial five-year term, the Executive Council, following Section 7(b) of Chapter-I of the Statutes, reappointed him. According to the petitioner, this created a right in his favour to continue as Finance Officer for the next five years or till superannuation.
On this basis, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sudden decision of the University Court in its 28th meeting on 26.08.2025 to declare him ineligible and issue a fresh advertisement was arbitrary and illegal. It was argued that the University had consistently defended his appointment before courts and the Chancellor, and could not now take a contrary stand. The petitioner also complained that no notice or opportunity was given to him to contest the allegation that he lacked eligibility.
On the other side, senior counsel for the University argued that “The Court” of the University is its apex body, having the power to review and correct earlier mistakes once they come to light. He submitted that illegality in appointment cannot be allowed to continue merely because it has existed for some time.
The University contended that the petitioner’s appointment as Finance Officer was initially made without adhering to Section 7(a) of Chapter-I of the Statutes. That provision states that the Finance Officer shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, either on deputation or by re-employment, from among officers of the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, or Bihar Accounts Service, or Bihar Finance Service. Importantly, it provides that the Finance Officer must come from these specified services.
The University’s stand was that the petitioner was not from any of these services. Therefore, his very appointment was contrary to Section 7(a). When this was brought to the attention of the members of the University Court, they decided, in the 28th meeting on 26.08.2025, to issue a fresh advertisement in keeping with the Statute. Accordingly, Advertisement No. 3/2025 was issued.
The University relied on the principle that recruitment must strictly follow the rules in force and that essential qualifications prescribed by statutory rules cannot be relaxed. In support, counsel cited the Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr [(2007) 10 SCC 260], particularly paragraphs 11, 12, 19 and 21. These passages underline that a person must possess the essential qualification as on the date prescribed, and that selection bodies cannot relax such requirements unless specifically empowered.
The Patna High Court then examined the broader legal position. It noted that in any conflict between an advertisement and statutory rules, regulations or statutes, the statutory provisions must prevail. The Court referred to consistent judgments of the Supreme Court holding that statutory rules and official regulations take precedence over advertisement content. Any part of an advertisement that contradicts these rules is invalid, and an erroneous advertisement cannot create rights for applicants.
The Court specifically relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [Civil Appeal Nos. 170–71 of 2018]. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly stated that any part of an advertisement which is contrary to statutory rules must give way to the statutory prescription. Where there is variance, it is the statutory rules that control. The Court also referred to Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors [2006 (9) SCC 507] as quoted in Ashish Kumar.
Further, the High Court reminded that the power of a Selection Committee to “relax” eligibility cannot be used to remove or bypass essential criteria laid down in the rules. For this proposition, it cited Food Corporation of India & Ors v. Bhanu Lodh & Ors [(2005) 3 SCC 618].
Coming to the facts of the present case, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s appointment was purportedly made “in terms of” Section 7(a) of Chapter-I of the Statutes. It reproduced Section 7(a), which clearly restricts the pool of eligible officers to those from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Bihar Accounts Service, or Bihar Finance Service.
On a plain reading, the High Court held that the Finance Officer must be an officer from one of these specified services. The University’s own stand was that Advertisement No. 1/2019 had been issued “not in strict compliance” with Section 7(a), since the appointment was made in the absence of officers from the Accountant General’s office or the Bihar Accounts or Finance Services.
The High Court did not go into the merits of how Advertisement No. 1/2019 was framed or why the initial appointment was made despite the statutory prescription. Instead, it focused on the present situation: once the University Court, as the apex body, was confronted with the question of eligibility, the University was duty-bound to follow the Statutes.
Therefore, the Court concluded that issuance of a fresh advertisement in conformity with Section 7(a) of Chapter-I of the Statutes could not be faulted. The petitioner’s challenge to the University Court’s decision, the new advertisement, and the communication letter had no merit. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has practical importance for university staff and job-seekers in Bihar and beyond. It shows that even if someone has held a post for several years, their appointment can still be questioned if it does not match the statutory rules.
For universities, the decision is a warning that recruitment must strictly follow the Statutes and government resolutions. If an advertisement or appointment order conflicts with a statutory provision, the Statute will override it. Past mistakes cannot be used to claim a right to continue in an ineligible post.
For employees and aspirants, the case underlines that they should carefully check whether they truly meet the statutory eligibility conditions, not just the wording of the advertisement. If the advertisement is wider than what the Statute allows, the courts will still go by the Statute.
The judgment also reinforces the authority of the apex bodies of universities, such as the University Court, to correct earlier irregular appointments when those appointments are discovered to be contrary to the governing Statutes.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a serving Finance Officer challenge a fresh recruitment advertisement when his own appointment is found inconsistent with statutory eligibility requirements under Section 7(a) of the University Statutes?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that statutory provisions prevail over earlier advertisements and actions. Once the University Court realised that the petitioner did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the Finance Officer must be an officer from specified financial services, it was duty-bound to issue a fresh advertisement, and this action could not be faulted. - Issue: Do erroneous advertisements or prior decisions of selection bodies create an enforceable right to continue in service contrary to the Statutes?
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that an erroneous advertisement cannot override statutory rules or create rights in favour of a candidate who is otherwise ineligible under those rules. Selection Committees also have no power to relax essential statutory qualifications unless expressly authorised.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 260
- Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 170–71 of 2018
- Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors, (2006) 9 SCC 507 (referred to within Ashish Kumar)
- Food Corporation of India & Ors v. Bhanu Lodh & Ors, (2005) 3 SCC 618
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16923 of 2025
Case Title: Ramji Singh v. Aryabhatta Knowledge University & Ors
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 109
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 02-12-2025
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. P. K. Verma, Senior Advocate; Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging university recruitment decision and fresh advertisement for the post of Finance Officer
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
