[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dr. Dinesh Prasad Gond vs The Bihar State University Service ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1580 of 2024
======================================================
1. Dr. Dinesh Prasad Gond Son of Late Moti Lal Prasad, Resident of Village-
Fazilpur, Kandhpaker, Police Station- Asaon, District- Siwan, Bihar
(841287).
2. Dr. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Ram, Resident of Village-
Piparahia, Police Station- Asaon, District- Siwan, Bihar (841245).
3. Vidhan Chandra, Son of Dinesh Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-
Barahiya, Tola- Dani, Police Station- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai, Bihar
(811302).
4. Dr. Kumar Abhishek, Son of Raj Banshi Singh, Resident of A-15,
Prabhunath Nagar, Tari, Chhapra, P.S. Mufassil, District- Saran, Bihar
841301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State University Service Commission through its Chairman, 8th
Floor, Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg,
Patna, Bihar- 800001.
2. The Chairman, Bihar State University Service, Commission, 8th Floor,
Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg, Patna,
Bihar- 800001.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State University Service, Commission, 8th Floor, Bihar
School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marg, Patna, Bihar-
800001.
4. The University Grants Commission, through the Chairman, Bahadur Shah
Jafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
For the BSUSC : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate
For the UGC : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
2/18
alia, for setting aside the minutes of meeting dated 22.09.2023
published by the Respondent Bihar State University Service
Commission (in short 'the Commission') whereby and
whereunder the authorities have decided that the Post-
Graduation Degree of Applied Microbiology is not a
relevant/allied subject of Botany for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor.
3. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 having completed
their Masters in Applied Microbiology from Banaras Hindu
University (in short 'BHU') and petitioner no.3 has completed
his post-graduation in the subject of applied Micro-Biology
from Patna University, passed the NET examination conducted
by CSIR-UGC in the subject of Life Science. On being found
eligible, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant
Professor in different Universities in terms of the Advertisement
issued by the Commission on 21.09.2020.
4. The captioned advertisement contained allied
subjects and in the subject of Botany it contained 7 allied
subjects, including the subject of Micro-Biology. The list of
relevant/allied subject was modified by a corrigendum dated
17.11.2020
and the subject of Bio-informatics was added to the
list, hence it is contended that the list of allied subject was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
final. The petitioners in the aforesaid premise had filed a writ
application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 21322 of 2021 for being
considered for appointment in the subject of Botany on the
strength of their post-graduation degree in the subject of
Applied Microbiology. The said writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 20.07.2023 with a direction to the respondent
Commission to revisit the list of concerned/relevant/allied
subject and consider the case of the petitioners in accordance
with Clause 3.8 of the Statute within a period of two months.
5. In terms with the order of this Court, the claim of
the petitioners along with other candidates were duly considered
by a Committee for their recruitment as Assistant Professor in
the subject of Botany and the same has been rejected by order
dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), inter alia,
on the ground that it is not an equivalent subject of Botany,
since the branch of these five subjects are not related to
Agriculture Science, they are related to Botany. The Committee
further informed that the Commission has approved the earlier
Equivalent Report submitted on 04.02.2020 and 20.10.2020.
6. Mr. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioners
canvassing the aforesaid, facts at the outset, submitted that
admitting the well settled principle that the decision of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
experts cannot be normally challenged in the writ jurisdiction,
but the decision making process is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Opinion of the experts are as much amenable to judicial review
as any judicial or administrative or executive action. It is further
submitted that Wednesbury principle of judicial review that no
authority shall take a decision which no reasonable man will
take is inasmsuch as applicable to expert opinion as it is
applicable to administrative or executive authority. In the
present case, the experts have though taken note of
advertisement of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
as well as the list of allied subjects of the State of Chhattisgarh,
but have failed to consider the list of such allied subject of
Botany, as determined by different Universities in the country.
7. It is further submitted that the Statute for
appointment of Assistant Professor for the Universities in the
State of Bihar was framed by the Chancellor and notified on
10.08.2020. The qualification prescribed in Article 3.3.1 of the
Statute was in tune with the UGC Regulation, 2018 and it
required a Masters Degree with 55% marks or an equivalent
grade in the concerned/relevant/allied subjects. Article 3.8 of the
Statute prescribed that the eligibility of candidate with degree in
Concerned/Relevant/Allied subjects for any specific subjects
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
will be decided by the Commission on the recommendation of a
Committee consisting of two or three subject experts.
8. Taking this Court to the aforenoted prescriptions,
he thus submitted that the aforenoted Articles prescribed two
types of Committee; (i) For determining the degree in the
concerned/relevant/allied subjects of the core subject and (ii) for
determining the equivalence with similar subjects with different
names and different Universities. The minutes of the expert
committee of the Commission dated 04.02.2020, as reiterated in
its meeting dated 02.03.2020 prescribes that seven subjects were
found to be relevant/allied for core subject of Botany. The same
list prescribes that all seven subjects are eligible to participate
NET examination in the subject of Live Sciences, including the
other subject of Botany.
9. It is the specific contention of the learned
Advocate for the petitioners that the minutes of the meeting
dated 04.02.2020 was prior to the date of advertisement, which
was published on 21.09.2020, hence no reliance could have
been placed on the same, unless and until applications were
invited and application forms were filled up, the Commission
had no knowledge about the relevant/allied subjects, in which
the candidates have applied. There is nothing in the meeting
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
dated 04.02.2020 to suggest that the subject of Applied
Microbiology or Agricultural Biotechnology or other subjects
were considered in the aforesaid meeting. Moreover, the
minutes of meeting dated 20.10.2020 has not been produced by
the Commission. However, from the corrigendum dated
17.11.2020 it appears that the subject of applied Micro-Biology
was not considered by the experts in the said meeting. The
respondent authorities / experts have not considered and
compared the syllabus of applied Micro-Biology vis-a-vis
Micro-biology, which has been treated to be an
allied/relevant/concerned subjects by the other Universities of
the country.
10. Mr. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the
petitioners has taken this Court through the minutes of the
meeting of the Experts and submitted that they have
mechanically concluded that Applied Microbiology is not
equivalent to Botany. The requirement of the eligibility criteria
prescribed in the Statute is not that that the Master's degree is
required to be equivalent to the core subject, but it is required to
be relevant/allied/concerned subject of the core subject. It is
further contended that the minutes of the meeting dated
22.09.2023 clearly demonstrates that none of the experts from
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
the subjects, which were being considered, were present in the
meeting. In the absence of any experts from Applied
Microbiology/ Agriculture Bio-technology etc., no decision
could have been reached by the authorities regarding
comparison of the syllabus of the reference subject or the core
subject. Therefore, the respondent authorities were not justified
in constituting a committee, which did not include any expert
from the subject, which were being considered by them.
11. It is lastly contended that in the case of Anand
Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in, (2021) 12
SCC 390 though the Court held that two subjects are allowed to
take NET examination in the core subject may not be
conclusive, but it is very relevant for determining equivalence of
subjects. In the present case, the authorities have not considered
the impact of the fact that both the Applied Microbiology and
Botany are eligible to appear in the NET examination conducted
in the subject of Life Sciences.
12. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate
representing the Commission while refuting the afore noted
contention has vehemently submitted that issue raised before
this Court is wholly misconceived and beyond the scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
inasmuch as, the Court in catena of decisions held that which
subjects would be relevant or allied subjects for the core subject
shall be decided by the academicians, since it is an academic
issue. The Court is not expert in academic matters and in cases
of this nature, the Court cannot have the expertise/knowledge to
decide as to whether the particular discipline or subject is
equivalent or allied or relevant subject to a particular or
concerned subject. Identical matter has come up for
consideration before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8940 of 2020
wherein the Court categorically observed as follows:
"9. According to the UGC Regulation and the
Statutes for the appointment of Assistant Professors
in the Universities of Bihar, it is required that
report with respect to the Committee of Subject
Experts be obtained with respect to taking a
decision regarding the allied/relevant subject in
which appointment shall be made. The report of the
Subject Experts for the core subjects is thus
required to be taken into consideration for taking
any decision to include any subject as an allied
subject of any one of the core subjects.
Unfortunately, the Subject Expert Committee has
declined to recommend "Women Studies" as one of
the allied subjects in core subject of
Humanities/Social Sciences.
10. This issue is best left to the wisdom and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
experience of the Subject Experts and of the UGC.
11. No mandamus can be issued to the authorities
to include a particular subject in the list of allied
subjects."
13. With respect to declaration of allied subject, the
learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1006 of 2018
has also reiterated that no mandamus can be issued in a matter,
which is under the domain of the experts and that is why such
matter is not considerable under the provision of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
14. Coming to the facts of the case, Mr. Anjani
Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently submitted that the
decision of the Expert Committee constituted in terms of Clause
3.8 of the 2020 Statutes has not found the subject of Applied
Microbiology in which the petitioners possess Post Graduate
degree to be a relevant/allied subject of Botany. It is further
contended that the clarification issued by the UGC vide Letter
No. F-17-6/2013 regarding relevance of the subject to be
decided by the concerned University/Authority with the aid of
experts in the concerned/related field as per its requirement. The
aforesaid regulation of UGC only requires that the appointing
authority "as per its requirement" with the help of subject
experts of the core subject decide on the relevance of subject.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
The subject experts of the core subject of Botany, a member of
the committee decided the issue whether Applied Microbiology
was a relevant/allied subject of Botany, suffices the requirement
under the law and thus no interference is required. It is next
contended that the UGC Regulations give complete autonomy to
each appointing authority to decide as per its requirement the
relevance of allied subjects with the aid of experts. The Applied
Microbiology has its own distinct and interdisciplinary nature
and thus the committee of experts has held it to be a branch of
Agriculture Science and not of Botany. The decision of the
Committee consisting of the experts of the core subjects is in
strict compliance with the order passed by this Court in the
earlier round of litigation.
15. It is lastly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that a common test of NET by subjects of
different courses cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of
equivalence.
16. In view of the facts noted hereinabove and the
position of law, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for
the Commission, prays for dismissal of the writ petition out
rightly.
17. Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, learned Advocate for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
the University Grants Commission has also filed a counter
affidavit and categorically submitted that with regard to
Equivalency of Degrees, UGC refers to UGC Public Notice
Letter No. F.9-3/2016 (CPP-II) dated 19.07.2016 wherein
Equivalence of Degrees, Diplomas, certificates etc. are not
determined by the UGC. In the case of higher education,
equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases
of employment, promotion etc., equivalence is decided by the
employing organization. The respondent University Grants
Commission is only entrusted with the function of regulating
and framing guidelines and regulations in the field of education
so as to maintain and raise academic standards.
18. This Court has given anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate/Senior
Advocate for the parties and also meticulously perused the
materials available on record.
19. Before delving into the point of determination,
it is relevant to not here that there is no confrontation with the
legal position that equivalence of educational qualification is a
technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of
relevant academic standards and practical attainment of such
qualification. Any decision of the appointing authority, based on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
recommendations of an expert body should not be interfered
with by the court, unacquainted with the relevant data and
unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of
determining equivalence. However, while exercising the power
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Court is well within its jurisdiction that the decision making
process is always amenable to writ jurisdiction, if there is
manifest error, resulting into grave injustice.
20. Coming to the issue as to whether the impugned
order suffers from manifest illegality, it would be necessary to
look into the captioned 'Advertisement', especially the relevant
prescriptions and the notification of the Statute for appointment
of Assistant Professor for the University of Bihar, 2020 framed
by the Hon'ble Chancellor.
21. Clause 3.3 of the Statute for appointment of
Assistant Professor prescribe essential qualification. Further
Clause 3.8, which is relevant for determining the present issue,
reads as follows: "The Eligibility of candidates with degree in
Concerned / Relevant / Allied subjects. Eligibility of candidates
with degree in concerned / relevant / allied subjects for any
specific subjects will be decided by the commission on the
recommendation of a committee consisting of two or three
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
subjects experts. The equivalence of similar subjects with
different names in different Universities will be decided by
committee consisting of two or three subjects experts."
22. Bare reading of the afore noted relevant
prescriptions, there are two kind of committees stipulated under
Clause 3.8 of the Statute (i) initially for determining the
concerned / relevant / allied subjects of the core subject and (ii)
for determining equivalent of similar subjects with different
names in different Universities. The requirement of the
eligibility criteria prescribed in the Statute is not that the
Masters degree is required to be equivalent to the core subject,
but it is required to be concerned / relevant / allied subjects of
the core subject, hence in the opinion of this Court what is
required is that the subject must be related to the core subject
and not equivalent to the core subject.
23. It is the admitted position that even by the
respondent authorities in their counter affidavit duly filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted that in other
educational institutions or other appointment authority in
different States guided by the UGC Regulation acknowledge
Applied Microbiology to be at part with the Microbiology such
as Hindu College, Delhi University; Central University of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
Himachal Pradesh; Swami Shraddhanand College, Delhi
University; Sri Venkateswara College, Delhi University; Daulat
Ram College, Delhi University, North Eastern Hill University,
(Central University), Munger, Purnea and Patna University as
well as Banaras Hindu University. These Universities have
categorically admitted that Applied Microbiology is the allied
subject of Botany.
24. It is relevant to state here that ensuring
consistency, the degree equivalence across different Universities
is essential for promoting students mobility, fair employment
opportunities and academic integrity, the individual institutions,
admittedly having independent autonomy establishing
standardized and transparent frame work is necessary to avoid
inconsistent or confusing evaluation, which certainly prevent
arbitrary decision. Without standardized frame works,
evaluation can be subjective, though Courts have always
cautioned that equivalence is a technical matter, however, it is
needless to observe that in larger interest consistency is
required.
25. Now coming to the impugned order, in pursuant
to the order of this Court, a three men committee consisting of
Professor and Head of the Department of Botany of three
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
different University after deliberation come to the conclusion
that Agriculture Biotechnology, Agro Chemical and Pest
Management, Plant Physiology, Applied Microbiology and
Genetic Engineering cannot be accepted as equivalent subject of
Botany as all the five subjects are the branches of Agriculture
Science and they do not have any relevance and thus they
cannot be treated as equivalent to the Botany.
26. A careful perusal of the order impugned, it
appears that besides equivalence of five subjects have been
determined by a three men committee, this Court also finds that
what was required to be determined are as to whether the afore
noted subjects were related to the core subject and not mere
equivalent to the core subject. The committee consisting of three
Professors and the Head of the Department of Botany have, in
fact, never examined as to whether the question subject they are
Concerned / Relevant / Allied subjects. Hence, the committee
misdirected in ascertaining equivalence between Applied
Microbiology and Botany. The Committee has committed
further wrong by acknowledging and swaying away the earlier
minutes of the meeting dated 04.02.2020 and 20.10.2020 despite
disclosing the necessary facts as to whether subject of Applied
Microbiology was considered by the subject experts in the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
meeting.
27. This Court is not oblivious with the settled
proposition and the caution made by the Courts that such issue
is best left to the wisdom and experience of the subject experts
and of the UGC, since the Court is not expert in academic
matters in cases of this nature. The Court cannot have the
expertise or knowledge to decide as to whether the particular
discipline or subject is equivalent or allied or relevant subjects
to a particular or concerned subject. However, it is also not in
dispute that while exercising the power of judicial review, it is
not the decision, what is amenable is the decision making
process and the manner in which the opinion has been given or,
the administrative or the executive action is dehors the law.
28. The manner, in which the committee proceeded
to decide the equivalence as well as concerned/relevance or
alliance of all the five subjects in one go without proper
deliberation and comparison to the syllabus of all the subjects,
ignoring the fact that in various Universities/institutions, the
subject of Allied Microbiology is treated as equivalent or Allied
subject of Microbiology/Botany. Such casual and cavalier
manner would certainly not satisfy the requirement and the
expectation of the Court, for which on the last occasion the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
matter was relegated to the experts in C.W.J.C. No. 20839 of
2021 and other analogous cases, directing the Commission to
revisit its list of the Concerned/Relevant/Allied Subjects in
accordance with Clause 3.8 of the Statute and notify its
decision. The respondents were expected to judiciously apply
their mind by comparing the syllabus of the reference subject
vis-a-vis, the core subject.
29. In the present case, the authorities/experts have
mechanically concluded that Applied Microbiology is not
equivalent to Botany, though the Statute clearly prescribes that
the Master degree is required not only equivalent to the core
subject, but it can also be considered if it is
Relevant/Allied/Concerned subject of the core subject. This
requirement has been, prima facie, overlooked. Hence this
Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order, as
contained in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 22.09.2023,
communicated through notice dated 22.09.2023, published by
the Bihar University Service Commission.
30. The matter is once again relegated to the
Commission to revisit and examine the subject of Applied
Microbiology as to whether it is Concerned/Relevant/Allied
subject to the core subject of Botany or not.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1580 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
31. This Court is apprised that till date, the
interview of the subject of Botany has not been conducted,
hence it is expected that the Commission shall constitute a
Committee in accordance with the Statute and take a fresh
decision in accordance with law and the observations made
hereinabove, preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
32. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
afore noted direction.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 04.11.2025
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
