Patna High Court
Dr. Ajit Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 12 August, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.394 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.949 of 2018
======================================================
Dr. Ajit Kumar Pandey Son of Late Dr. R.D. Pandey, Permanent Resident of
A/74- Birla Colony, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. His Excellency, The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
3. Vice- Chancellor, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
4. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mukul Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr.K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr.Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
Mr.Radhika Raman, Sr. CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-08-2024
The petitioner-appellant, was aggrieved with the
denial of appointment as an Assistant Professor, which selection
was initiated by the respondent-Bihar Agricultural University, as
per Advertisement No. 07 of 2011.
2. The petitioner's contention before the learned
Single Judge was specifically that the certificate evidencing the
experience, that he was a Senior Research Fellow was not
available with the petitioner at the time of submitting the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.394 of 2022 dt.12-08-2024
2/6
application form, but was issued later on by the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on 03.04.2012. It was argued
that the same was placed before the interview board and if the
marks for experience; coming to two marks for each year of
experience was added, he would have got higher rank than the
person who was selected last at 57.57 marks; while the
petitioner was granted only 54.01 marks. It was also argued that
there were 61 unreserved vacancies, of which only 31 were
filled up.
3. The respondent, however, specifically pointed out
the notification which required all certificates, with respect to
requisite academic qualifications, experience, awards, medals,
fellowship etc. till the last date of application to be produced
along with the application or rather; no enclosure or certificates
being accepted after the last date of application.
4. The learned Single Judge found that even the
application form produced by the petitioner, along with the writ
petition, did not have his signature and hence it cannot be
treated as the original. The further averment that he had attached
the experience certificate along with the application form, hence
was found to be doubtful and incorrect. The writ petition was
dismissed also noticing the contention of the respondent that in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.394 of 2022 dt.12-08-2024
3/6
fact the total vacancies available were 61 and there were only 31
unreserved vacancies.
5. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has argued that, in fact the application form attached
along with the writ petition did not have a signature, since he
had merely downloaded the same from the computer. The
requirement as per the notification was to fill-up the format of
the application in the computer, download the same and send
hard-copy to the University. In that circumstance, the signature
was put only after the application was printed out before
sending it to the University. It is also pointed out that the
certificate issued by the ICAR, was produced at the time of
interview. This was the certificate issued at the time of
completion of the project. The temporary certificates regarding
the experience at the time of application, was attached with the
application, is the specific contention.
6. At the outset, we observe that the appellant has not
impleaded any successful candidate, even in a representative
capacity. In fact, the specific averment of the appellant was that
the last candidate selected, under the unreserved category had
57.57 marks, while he had only 54.01 marks. His contention
was that if he had been granted the marks for experience, based
Patna High Court L.P.A No.394 of 2022 dt.12-08-2024
4/6
on the certificates he had produced along with the application,
then necessarily he would have scored more marks. If that was
the case, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have impleaded
that person who had been selected; who he claims was the last
candidate under the unreserved category and would have
secured lesser marks than him.
7. Further we also notice that the advertisement was
of the year 2011 and there is no explanation as to why the
appellant approached this Court in the year 2018. The learned
Counsel on a specific query made by us, was also not able to
give any satisfactory explanation to that aspect.
8. Further, we notice that even in the reply to the
counter affidavit filed in the writ application, the petitioner had
specifically contended in Paragraph 6 that the petitioner was in
possession of the certificate dated 03.04.2012, which was
produced at the time of interview on 09.08.2012. In paragraph 7,
it is again asserted that the petitioner submitted the certificate
dated 03.04.2012 only at the time of interview on 09.08.2012.
The said averments would clearly indicate that the certificate
was not produced along with the application forms. The reliance
placed, especially is on the certificate dated 03.04.2012 and the
appellant cannot now wriggle out of his obligation, on the mere
Patna High Court L.P.A No.394 of 2022 dt.12-08-2024
5/6
submission that the unsigned application was one printed out
from the computer.
9. The very submission that it was a mere print out
would indicate that it was not the original sent to the University.
In fact, when producing a copy, it should have been the copy of
the signed certificate which was sent to the University and not a
print out made subsequent to the sending of the application,
merely for the purpose of filing a writ petition.
10. In such circumstance, we find valid, the finding
of the learned Single Judge that the application produced cannot
be considered to be the original one.
11. We also notice the extract from the notification of
09.06.2011
which is as follows:
6. Requisite academic qualifications, experience,
awards, medals, fellowship etc. will be considered
which have been awarded till last date of
application.
7. No enclosure/certificates will be accepted after
last date of application.
8. Details of the research papers with a copy of
reprint is essential to be enclosed. In case of books
photocopy of cover page, Preface, contents and back
cover page be attached with the application.
12. The above extract very clearly indicates that the
certificates had to accompany the application form and no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.394 of 2022 dt.12-08-2024
certificates would be accepted either for academic qualification,
awards, medals, fellowship or experience after the last date of
application. For the valid reasoning recorded by the learned
Single Judge and for the additional reasons pointed out by us,
we find absolutely no reason to entertain the appeal and we
dismiss the same. The parties to suffer their respective costs.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 14.08.2024
Transmission Date
