Case Background
This case arose from a large recruitment of Assistant Professors in various subjects for universities in Bihar.
The Bihar State University Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 21.09.2020 for the posts of Assistant Professor. The minimum qualification mentioned was 55% marks at the post-graduate level in the concerned subject along with NET/BET/Ph.D.
Under Clause 5.5 of the advertisement, only the experience of those teachers was to be counted whose services had been “duly confirmed by the University Selection Committee/College Service Commission/College Selection Committee”. Under Clause 7 and especially Clause 7.2, up to 10 marks (2 marks for each year) were reserved for teaching experience. These marks were important for shortlisting candidates for interview.
The petitioners were candidates who had applied under this advertisement. After the selection process started, a three-member committee headed by Professor Rash Bihari Prasad Singh took a decision regarding how teaching experience certificates would be accepted.
The committee resolved that the experience certificate issued by the Head of Department/Principal/Institute, countersigned by the Registrar of the respective University, would be valid for awarding marks for teaching experience in accordance with the Statutes. The Bihar State University Service Commission accepted this recommendation.
The petitioners felt that this decision effectively allowed the experience of ad hoc and guest faculty to be counted, which according to them went against Clause 5.5 of the advertisement. They approached the Patna High Court by way of a writ petition seeking mandamus and other reliefs.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners asked the Court to direct the authorities to strictly follow Clause 5.5 of the advertisement dated 21.09.2020 while filling the Assistant Professor vacancies. They also sought to restrain the respondents from implementing “subsequent changes” in educational qualification and experience recognition through a resolution dated 14.07.2021 and a memorandum dated 22.07.2021 issued by the Secretary, Bihar State University Service Commission, along with all consequential actions.
On the qualifications part, the judgment as extracted focuses primarily on experience, not on any specific change to educational qualifications. The main grievance argued before the Court was about teaching experience and the effect of the three-member committee’s clarification.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that under Clause 5.5 only the experience of those teachers whose services had been confirmed by the University Selection Committee/College Service Commission/College Selection Committee could be counted. According to them, this meant only experience after regular appointment, not experience gained while working as ad hoc teachers or guest faculty.
They stressed that if experience certificates issued by Heads of Departments or Principals and countersigned by Registrars were accepted, even ad hoc and guest teachers would get the benefit of teaching experience marks. This, they said, would be contrary to Clause 5.5 and would amount to changing the “rules of the game” after the game had started.
To support this, they pointed out that:
1. The Registrar of Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University had objected to inclusion of certain candidates on this basis.
2. The Registrar of Patna University had objected to issuing experience certificates to guest faculty.
3. As per the Statutes for appointment of Assistant Professors in University of Bihar, 2020, a committee could be formed only for examining eligibility of candidates with degrees in the concerned subject, not for changing the way experience is counted.
4. In another case at Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, the experience of a candidate as guest faculty was allegedly not counted with reference to Clause 10 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018.
They placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors.) and (2005) 4 SCC 154 (Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna & Ors.), to argue that rules of the selection process cannot be changed mid-way.
The Court first examined whether any cause of action had actually arisen at this stage. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted that the selection process had not yet been completed. No final orders had been passed in favour of or against any candidate. No concrete action had been taken that had actually taken away any right of the petitioners.
On this basis, the Court held that as on the date of hearing, no cause of action had arisen to file the writ petition. The petition was based only on the decision of the three-member committee, not on any actual exclusion or adverse action.
The Court then considered Clause 5.5 of the advertisement, which states that only those teachers’ experience shall be counted whose services have been duly confirmed by the University Selection Committee/College Service Commission/College Selection Committee. The Court emphasised that the three-member committee’s decision did not amend this clause.
Instead, according to the Court, the committee only clarified the method and manner in which an experience certificate was to be issued: by the Head of Department/Principal/Institute and countersigned by the Registrar of the University. The advertisement was silent on the format and mode of issuing the certificate. Therefore, the committee was within its power to issue such a clarification.
The Court observed that this clarification actually helped to smoothen the selection process. It removed doubt among candidates about what kind of certificate would be accepted and prevented confusion arising from different formats and signatories in different universities. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the clarification amounted to changing the rules of the game.
On this reasoning, the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioners regarding changing rules mid-way were found to be inapplicable to the facts.
The Court then turned to the second and more substantive question: whether experience gained as guest teacher or on ad hoc basis could be excluded from consideration.
The Court noted that the advertisement itself did not make any distinction between different categories of teachers. There was no clause expressly excluding guest or ad hoc teaching experience.
To address this issue, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 345. In that case, the question was whether teaching experience gained by a specialist in a teaching hospital as an ex officio Associate Professor should be counted toward the required teaching experience for appointment as Professor. The Supreme Court held that the recruitment rules did not say that teaching experience must be gained on a regular appointment, and that experience gained in such a capacity could not be ignored.
The Supreme Court explained that the rules did not say that teaching experience gained in an ex officio capacity shall not count, and there was hardly any difference in teaching experience whether acquired on regular appointment or otherwise, as long as the person was actually teaching.
The Patna High Court also referred to another Supreme Court judgment: Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. The Utkal University, AIR 1999 SC 669. In that case, the Supreme Court accepted a combination of teaching and research experience to satisfy a requirement of “about 10 years” experience and criticised an approach that would completely ignore existing teaching experience.
Relying on these authorities, the Patna High Court held that the argument that teaching experience gained by faculty members as guest teachers or on ad hoc basis should not be considered could not be accepted. The focus of the recruitment scheme was to reward “actual experience of teaching students” by giving two marks for each year of experience.
The Court underlined that there was a clear nexus between this objective and counting genuine teaching experience, regardless of label, so long as it was properly certified. Clause 5.5 did not in any manner deny such experience from being counted. It only insisted that the fact of service must be duly certified by the relevant selection or service commission or selection committee, which the three-member committee had operationalised by requiring certification by the Principal and countersignature by the Registrar.
On the argument based on the draft University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, the Court was clear that those were only draft regulations. They had not yet come into force and still required formal confirmation by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the petitioners could not rely on draft regulations to argue that guest faculty experience should not be counted.
The Court declined to comment on the correctness of the stand allegedly taken by Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Lucknow in respect of one candidate, because that matter was not before it. It only held that the draft UGC Regulations, 2018 were not enforceable as on date.
In conclusion, after examining the entire material, the Court found no reason to interfere with the “method and manner of selection process” being conducted by the Bihar State University Service Commission. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners failed. The writ petition was held to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has practical importance for thousands of teaching aspirants in Bihar, especially those who have served as guest or ad hoc faculty in colleges and universities.
First, the Patna High Court has made it clear that where an advertisement does not distinguish between regular, ad hoc or guest teachers, experience gained as guest or ad hoc faculty can be counted for recruitment, provided the experience is genuine and properly certified.
Second, the Court has accepted that recruitment bodies can issue clarifications on procedural aspects, such as the format and countersignature of experience certificates, without being seen as changing the “rules of the game”. This gives commissions and universities some flexibility to remove confusion and ensure uniform documentation.
Third, the judgment confirms that draft regulations of bodies like the University Grants Commission, which have not yet come into force, cannot be used by candidates to challenge an ongoing recruitment process.
For candidates in Bihar seeking Assistant Professor posts, the decision means that their guest or ad hoc teaching years may be valuable, so long as they obtain proper certificates from the Head of Department or Principal, countersigned by the Registrar, as per the clarification accepted by the Bihar State University Service Commission.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Did the three-member committee’s clarification on experience certificates amount to an illegal change in the recruitment rules after the process had started?
Answer: No. The Court held it was only a clarification about the method of issuing certificates, not a change in Clause 5.5, and was permissible. -
Issue: Can teaching experience gained as guest teacher or on ad hoc basis be excluded from consideration under the advertisement for Assistant Professors?
Answer: No. The advertisement made no such distinction, and in light of Supreme Court precedents, such genuine teaching experience can be counted if duly certified. -
Issue: Can candidates rely on draft UGC Regulations, 2018 to insist that guest faculty experience should not be counted?
Answer: No. The draft regulations had not come into force and were not enforceable; they could not be used to challenge the selection process.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 345
- Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. The Utkal University, AIR 1999 SC 669
- The petitioners also cited (2001) 10 SCC 51 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors.) and (2005) 4 SCC 154 (Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna & Ors.), but the Court held these were not applicable to the facts.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5424 of 2022
Case Title: Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022(3) PLJR 87
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy I (SC 13)
- For respondent nos. 3 and 4 (Bihar State University Service Commission): Mr. Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Nature of the case: Writ petition (civil) challenging recruitment procedure for Assistant Professors conducted by Bihar State University Service Commission
Date of Judgment: 12.05.2022
Link to Full Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTQyNCMyMDIyIzEjTg==-s–ak1–xTc7SQonY=
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.
