Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU) does not have recruitment rule in place for the post of Assistant Registrar, no experience required for his recruitment: Patna High Court
In Deepankar Shree Gyan vs. The Honble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar through the Secretary, Governors Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna & Ors. (2025), Justice Nani Tagia of Patna High Court passed a 5-page long order dated September 8, 2025 wherein, he directed that "the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits."
Justice Tagia observed: "10. From the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent University, it, thus, has become clear that there is neither any recruitment rule in place insofar as the post of Assistant Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna is concerned requiring any experience in service as prescribed in the advertisement dated 19.08.2011 nor the guidelines issued by the UGC for recruitment of Assistant Registrar of the Universities prescribes any experience in service for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Registrar in the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna. 11. In that view of the matter, no experience as provided in the advertisement dated 19.08.2011 could have been provided by the Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna at the time of recruitment of petitioner as Assistant Registrar pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement nor the petitioner could have been terminated from the post of Assistant Registrar vide the impugned terminated order dated 01.09.2023 on the ground that the petitioner does not posses the required experience prescribed in the advertisement dated 19.08.2011. 12. In that view of the matter this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 issued by the Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna vide Memo No. 003/Admn/01-26/AKU/2015-3300, is set aside and quashed."
The counsels of the petitioner included Sr. Advocate Yogesh Chandra Verma, Dr. Gopal Krishna, Priyanka Singh, Adarsh Singh, Vikash Kumar Jha and Khalid Faizan. Advocate Awadhesh Kumar represented the university. None appeared on behalf the Chancellor. The respondents included: Chancellor of Universities, Bihar through the Secretary, Governors Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna, the State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Government of Bihar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, through the Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, the Vice Chancellor, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, and the Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University. The petitioner had challenged in the writ petition university's order dated September 1, 2023 issued by the Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, whereby the petitioner who was an Assistant Registrar in the Aryabhatta Knowledge University had been terminated with immediate effect. The order of termination indicated that it had been issued in the light of the letter dated August 17, 2023 of the Governor Secretariat, Bihar, Raj Bhavan, Patna; order number dated May 30, 2023 passed by the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar and the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University in its 47th meeting held on September September 1, 2023. The petitioner was recruited as Assistant Registrar in terms of the advertisement dated August 19, 2011 issued by the Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna inviting application, inter-alia, for filling up one post of Assistant Registrar (unreserved).
The order notes: "Minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment of Assistant Registrar in the advertisement is good academic record plus Master’s Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of ‘B’ in UGC seven-point scale and experience of three years as a Section Officer/ Superintendent in Central State University offices or five years of experience as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in a college or a University or an autonomous institution with experience in educational administration. The petitioner is stated to have been terminated from the service on the ground of lacking experience as provided in the advertisement dated 19.08.2011."
The order recorded that the advocate appearing for the respondent University had made a categorical submission that "there is no recruitment rule in place for recruitment and appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna." He also submitted that in the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for recruitment of Assistant Registrar of the Universities, though minimum educational qualifications was prescribed, it prescribed in the advertisement dated August 19, 2011 but there was no prescription of any experience by the candidates for appointment as Assistant Registrar.
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna wrote an elaborate note with regard to the questionable nature of Chancellor's illegitimate intervention which led to the termination of Deepankar Shree Gyan by AKU. The note is as under:
1. That the entire judicial and administrative process against the petitioner was initiated by a third party, one stranger namely, Surya Kumar Singh through a PIL-CWJC No. 432 of 2022 in a service matter which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court without expressing “any opinion on merits”. Surya Kumar Singh, a third party who did not have an indefeasible right, pursued the matter before the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, which has ended up raking up a stale issue which was settled ten years back.
In para 9 of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Court emphasized that existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the pre-condition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in the Court. The Court observed:”It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same….”
In para 10 of the same judgment, the Court observed: “10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised….”
In para 33-38 Hon’ble Court observed: “33. Courts have never permitted busy bodies to falsely smear reputations of honourable citizens by dragging them into frivolous litigations. The process of the Court is too pure to be abused by disgruntled litigants. 34. Courts are not the playground of busy bodies, whose sport is frivolous litigation. 35. Considerable time was spent in hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners who was insisted on submitting the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners insisted on arguing the matter even after the orders were passed. He submitted that he is under strict instructions from his clients to do so. 36. Such litigants have to be discouraged from approaching this Court with such frivolous claims. Frivolous litigation consumes a lot of judicial time in futile pursuits. Judicial time is not inexhaustible and is a precious commodity. Court time has to be used in a judicious manner solely in the task of dispensing justice to needy citizens. Judicial time wasted in futile and frivolous litigation at the behest of a busybody is in effect a denial of justice to a needy citizen. 37. Currently few dissuasive measures are enforced to prevent such frivolous litigations. Busy bodies initiate frivolous litigation in the belief that such litigation is a roulette in which no one loses or is a fail safe activity. To curb the menace of frivolous litigation which consumes precious judicial time of the court, it is imperative to create a deterrent regime which may include imposition of exemplary costs on such litigants. In absence of legal deterrence busybodies will indulge in their favoured activity of filing frivolous petition with a sense of impunity. 38. The petitioners are busybodies who have no right or locus standi to institute this petition and waste the time and resources of the Court.”
These observations apply to Surya Kumar Singh who initiated the entire judicial and administrative process who is an outsider with no locus standi to raise issues of recruitment because he is not an aggrieved person. A private citizen or a stranger or a third party having no existing enforceable legal right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any relevant service matter is not entitled to seek judicial or administrative remedy from an adjudicating body.
2. That AKU has validated the eligibility of the petitioner on four occasions:
I. On October 7-8, 2013, after verification of his eligibility and experience, Registrar AKU intimated recommendation of the Selection Committee of the AKU to the petitioner for his appointment as Assistant Registrar.
II. On 4-5 September, 2015, after verification of his eligibility and experience, Registrar AKU issued a notification confirming petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Registrar.
III. On 9 July, 2018, VC, AKU had submitted a detailed report to the Hon’ble Chancellor stating that there was no infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner. The said letter was on record before the Hon’ble Chancellor, but it has not been taken into consideration in his subsequent communication.
IV. On May 4, 2023, AKU filed a counter affidavit before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5406 of 2022 (Satish Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar) in para 4, 5 and 20, wherein it asserted that no infirmity was found in the appointment of the petitioner.
AKU’s termination letter dated 01.09.2023 is in breach of the principle of res judicata.
In para 28 of its judgement dated 11 February, 2025 in Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Ram Kishori Gupta on 2025 SCC OnLine SC 748, the Hon’ble Supreme Court drew on Hon’ble Court’s decision in Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another (1999) 5 SCC 590, wherein it observed: “Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. It was observed that the principles of res judicata would be equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities.” Hon’ble Court also cited the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Devilal Modi vs. State Tax Officer, Ratlam, and others AIR 1965 SC 1150, wherein it observed: :…Needless to state, these stellar principles would not only apply to the parties to a dispute but would also bind the adjudicating authorities seized of such dispute, be they judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative.”
These judicial precedents demonstrate that the termination letter violate the principle of res judicata.
3. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 para 10 lays down that “the public authority cannot play fast and loose with the power vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order.”
4. That there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or misleading or fault on the petitioner.
5. That the petitioner has worked for 10 years in the university. After 10 years, the order of termination amounts to raking up a stale matter. It is not permissible. Considering the long satisfactory service, appointment has been retained in Vivek Kaisth vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2024) AIR (SC) 545 and Vikash Pratap Singh vs. The of Chhatisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494.
6. That the order of termination Annexure-8 suffers from the following vices:
I. The order is not accompanied with the resolution of the Executive Council of the Aryabhat Knowledge University (AKU).
II. The impugned order of termination does not give facts or basis for termination of the Assistant Registrar.
III. The reason, i.e. whether there was any sufficient reason for termination, is missing. The order of termination is an unreasoned order.
IV. There is no application of mind in the termination order. The termination order was issued because of the dictates or direction of the the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar. The university is supposed to act according to law and not on extraneous considerations.
7. In para 47 of the judgement dated July 8, 2025 by this Hon’ble Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy in The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Bihar, Governors Secretariat, Patna vs. Kumari Anjana & Ors. (2025) has upheld the decision dated March, 2025 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, the Single Judge Bench in CWJC 2965 of 2024 Kumari Anjana vs. The State of Bihar (2025). The Division Bench concluded:".... We make it doubly clear that we have not commented on the rationale and the correctness of the judgment in the case of the writ petitioner, which has not been challenged by any one of the parties here” referring to the direction for re-instating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits forthwith and setting aside of the order of termination of the petitioner.
8. That the petitioner’s case is covered by this Hon’ble Court’s decision in Kumari Anjana vs. The State of Bihar (2025). The reference to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions and findings made in the case are relevant for the petitioner’s case. The relevant para in the judgement are 50 and 54-56.
9. That the order-Annexure-10 of the the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar is dated 30.05.2023. The same was communicated on 17.08.2023 after a delay of approximately 3-months.
In para 50, this Hon’ble Court has observed: “Another issue which assumes importance is the delay in challenge to the appointment to the petitioner as well as the deliberate concealment on the part of concerned officials about the factum of previous inquiries conducted with respect to petitioner in the year 2017 and 2018. It is apparent from the effective concealment that the Act of termination of the petitioner is tainted with malice as the concerned officials have deliberately concealed the previous inquiries conducted by the office of Accountant General and Hon’ble Chancellor in 2017 and 2018 wherein the report favoured the petitioner, thereby misleading the Hon’ble Chancellor in passing of an erroneous order. Also, the delay in challenge to the appointment of the petitioner also shows that the entire action was effectuated with malice and this court is of opinion that the order of termination of the petitioner is also fit to be set aside in light of Principles of equity.” The Division Bench has upheld this observation.
In paras 54-56, drawing on the ratio of the the binding judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 (7) SCC 318 wherein Hon’ble Court had issued directions with respect to the passing of duration of time within which the order has to be passed after reserving the matter for passing final judgment, this Hon’ble Court observed:”54. Consequently, in light of the discussions made herein above and based on the aforesaid principle this court is of the
view that the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 4 as well as the consequential order issued vide Memo No. 120 dated 06.01.2024, cancelling the appointment of petitioner as Deputy Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna be non-est and not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside. 55. In the result, this writ petition is allowed based on aforesaid terms and pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 56. The respondents are directed to re-instate petitioner in service with all consequential benefits forthwith.”
Likewise, the present petitioner deserves to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits forthwith.
10. That the sole ground of termination is lack of experience. The advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Registrar is Annexure 1. The insistence on lack of experience is not sustainable because the petitioner, has submitted his papers indicating his experience in an autonomous educational institution, namely, Searchlight Publishing House. He had experience of 7 years although there was requirement of 5 years. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 287, AIR 1986, p. 528 lays down that newspapers and media are educational institutions. (Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc. Etc.)
That even if this experience is deemed inadequate, in Part A, Clause 8 of the advertisement there is a provision for relaxation in appropriate cases. The presumption is that provision for relaxation was taken recourse to, which cannot be re-examined after over 10 years.
11. That the order-Annexure-10 of the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar is dated 30.05.2023. The same was communicated on 17.08.2023 after a delay of approximately 3-months. After the order dated 30.05.2023, the petitioner had sent a representation by e-mail on 31.05.2023 and 02.06.2023. There is no reference to it on the order of the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar. The order is too sketchy. It does not provide any reason. It is based on misreading of the documents on record, non-reading of all documents on record, misconstruing of the eligibility conditions and terms used in the Advertisement issued by the AKU, the relevant Statutory provisions and the relevant law which governs appointment of Assistant Registrar. It does not factor in the counter affidavit dated May 4, 2023 filed in CWJC No. 5406 of 2020 before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
In Sheo Shyam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2004] 2 SCR 406 : (2005) 10 SCC 314, the Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the State to blow “hot and cold in the same breath as there has to be consistency in its view.”
12. That Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar is an appellate authority. Clause 39 (b) of the AKU statute, at page no. 40 is about the same. He has no power to examine appointment of any person which took place 10 years back. Section 8 (10), p.25 of the Act only empowers the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar to annul any proceeding of the Executive Council if the same is contrary to the Act.
13. That a duly statutorily constituted Selection Committee of AKU undertook the selection process of the appointment. The Selection Committee is an expert body. It consists of representatives of the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, State government and the university. Executive Council of AKU is the competent authority to appoint under Section 13 (c) of Statutes of Chapter I of University, 2011 accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The nominee of the Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities, Bihar (Respondent No. 1) was also part of the University Executive Council. The University Executive Council confirmed the services of the petition on 05.09.2015.
AKU Executive Council considered the eligibility of the petitioner on two occasions, firstly at the time of his appointment and secondly, at the time of confirmation.
Subsequently, AKU reiterated its position in writing on 09.07.2018, in its detailed report to the Hon’ble Chancellor stating that there was no infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner. AKU took a consistent stand in its counter affidavit dated 04.05. 2023 before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5406 of 2022 (Satish Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar) in para 4, 5 and 20, wherein it asserted that no infirmity was found in the appointment of the petitioner.
14. That the resolution of the University Executive Council dated 01.09.2023 was not accompanied with the Order of termination which is the basis of termination of the petitioner. If the Order is not accompanied with the resolution of the University Executive Council, the Order becomes void.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1952 AIR 16: “We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to hum they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” This decision of the competent authority cannot be reviewed, re-examined and re-apprised.
15. That Clause 39 of the statute lays down the ground of termination. None of the ground mentioned therein apply in the case of the petitioner.
16. That no show cause was issued to the petitioner before issuing the termination letter.
17. In para 43 of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the Court observed: “Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautllya's Arthashastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice, which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system."
18. The termination order of the petitioner is in breach of the second fundamental principle of natural justice, the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). The principle must be adhered to at the original stage. In para 68-69 of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024-4 SCR 151, the Hon’ble Court observed:
“68. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics. 69. An allegation of bias, can only be proved if facts are established after giving an opportunity of hearing. This process requires a fair and transparent procedure in which the concerned parties are given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Such an opportunity allows the accused party or the affected individuals to respond to the allegations, provide evidence, and clarify any misgivings regarding the decision-making process. Therefore, for an allegation of bias to be proved, it is imperative that the procedural safeguards of a fair hearing are observed allowing for establishment of the relevant facts.” The judgement was delivered on January 29, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment