Patna High Court
Kumari Anjana vs The State Of Bihar on 5 March, 2025
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2965 of 2024
======================================================
Kumari Anjana Wife of Sanjay Sinha, Resident of Flat No. 301, Block B2, Jagmano
Kuteer, Akashwani Road, Khajpura, Patna - 800014. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Vice Chancellor, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Mithapur, Patna.
6. The Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Fazle Karim, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (17)
For the Chancellor : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the A.K.U. : Mr. Nadim Seraj, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bindyachal Rai, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-03-2025
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order
or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ/order or direction for
quashing 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 Dy.
Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna;
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
2/42
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Order or
Direction, commanding the Respondents to reinstate
the petitioner with all consequential benefits of
continuity, seniority, arrears of salary etc, in
accordance with law.
3. The short fact of the present case is that the petitioner
being the topper in the final merit list of BPSC got appointed as
CDPO in Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar
vide Memo No. 1689 dated 11.10.2000 on the pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500 where she joined on 24.10.2000. She gained 13
years of unblemished service experience by 2013, and after
completion of 10 years of service, she was granted the benefits
of first Assured Career Progression (ACP) in PB-2 Grade Pay of
Rs.5400/-(Annexure P/1 of the Writ Petition). Meanwhile, an
advertisement dated 19.08.2011 was published by the
Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna calling for application
from eligible candidates for appointment against various
Academic, Administrative and Non-Teaching posts of the
University, including the post of Deputy Registrar. Following
are the minimum qualifications prescribed in the aforesaid
advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar-
Section B
1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR/ CONTROLLER
OF EXAMINATIONS/PENSION &
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
3/42
RETIREMENT BENEFIT OFFICER
Minimum Qualifications:
Master Degree with at least 55% of the
marks or its equivalent grade of "B" in
UGC seven-point scale.
Experience:
9 years of Experience as Assistant
Professor in AGP (Academic Grade Pay)
of Rs. 6000/- and above with experience
in educational administration;
Or
Comparable experience in research
establishment and/or other institutions of
higher education;
Or
5 years of administrative experience as
Assistant Registrar or on an Equivalent
Post;
Apart from above, Clause 8 (i) of the
General Conditions prescribed in the
Advertisement, specifically empowered
the University to relax the minimum
requirement of Qualification and/or
Experience on the recommendations of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
4/42
the Screening/ Selection Committee.
(Annexure P/2 of the Writ Petition)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has
experience of more than 11 years on a Pay Scale and/ or Grade
Pay higher than what was admissible to Assistant Registrar or
on an Equivalent Post of the University. The petitioner,
therefore, fulfilled the Experience qualification as required
under the third category prescribed in Clause 1 of Section "B" of
the aforesaid Advertisement. Further, the petitioner also possess
Master's Degree in First Division i.e., more than 60% of marks
and had done her M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Based on these qualifications her
application was duly forwarded by the competent authority of
the State Government on 13.12.2012 (Annexure P/4 of the Writ
Petition).
5. Thereafter, the matter of appointment against the said
post of Deputy Registrar was considered by the duly constituted
University Selection Committee and the petitioner was awarded
the highest marks by the said Selection Committee and was
therefore, placed at the top of the merit list. The
recommendation of the said Selection Committee was
considered by the Executive Council constituted by the State
Government, which approved the Selection of the petitioner for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
5/42
the post of Deputy Registrar, and accordingly, she was
appointed on the sanctioned vacant post of Deputy Registrar on
Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- on dated 08.10.2013
and the State Government, vide Memo No.5152 dated
18.10.2013
, allowed the Petitioner to join the said post albeit on
Deputation, while retaining her lien against the substantive post
of CDPO, subsequently she joined on the post of Deputy
Registrar on 19.10.2013 (Annexure P/5& P-5/1 of the Writ
Petition).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Respondent University vide letter no. 331 and 330 dated
31.01.2017 based on the petitioner’s satisfactory services during
her probation period on the said post, took a conscious decision
to confirm the petitioner on the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f.
18.10.2014, and specifically directed petitioner to tender
resignation from the previous post under the Department of
Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar to avoid further complications
(Annexure P/6 and Annexure P-6/1 of the Writ Petition).
Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted her resignation to the
State Government on 02.02.2017 which was accepted by the
State Government vide memo no. 2328 dated 31.05.2017 with
effect from 18.10.2013 i.e., the date of initial appointment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
6/42
petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar (Annexure P/7 of the
Writ Petition).
7. Learned counsel then submits that it appears that the
aforesaid confirmation of petitioner on the post of Deputy
Registrar, was not to the liking of some vested interest and
therefore, an attempt was made to somehow prejudice the same
by raising stale and frivolous audit objections vide Accounting
Memorandum No. SS/II/05-20 dated 18.08.2017 and a report
was called from the University. The Registrar of the University,
on 19.08.2017, submitted a detailed report specifically admitting
therein that the petitioner had been drawing a pay scale much
higher than that of Assistant Registrar for more than 10 years
and fulfilled all the condition of eligibility required under UGC
circulars/regulations for appointment on the post of Deputy
Registrar, which had duly been considered by a statutory
Selection Committee as well as the Executive Council of the
Respondent University at the time of her initial appointment.
The aforesaid objection as well as the report of the University
was duly considered by the Senior Audit Officer, Account
General (Audit), Bihar and having found the same to be
satisfactory, no further objection to the appointment of petitioner
was raised in the final form submitted pursuant to such Audit
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
7/42
(Annexure P/8 of the Writ Petition)
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
another complaint was filed before the Governor’s Secretariat/
Hon’ble Chancellor (Respondent No. 4). Then one Mr. Anil
Kumar (Joint Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat) requested a
report from the University against the said complaint. In
response, the registrar of the University submitted a detailed
report on 25.01.2018. The report confirmed the petitioner’s
appointment and provided details of her educational
qualifications and administrative experience. It also mentioned
the petitioner’s confirmation and that she had resigned from her
previous post as per the University’s direction, ending her
permanent lien. The University again affirmed the correctness of
her appointment as Deputy Registrar (Annexure P/9 of the Writ
Petition). Subsequently, the Respondent No. 4 being satisfied
with the report submitted by the Registrar of the University did
not take any further action.
9. Thereafter, a CWJC No. 5406 of 2020 via a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before this Court, wherein the
petitioner was listed as Respondent No. 09. Then the
Respondent University therein filed a Counter and
Supplementary Counter Affidavit, wherein they relying on
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
8/42
records, advertisements, and regulations, reaffirmed the validity
of the petitioner’s appointment, stating that she had the required
qualifications and equivalent work experience (Annexure P/10
& P/10-1 of the Writ Petition).
10. While the matter was pending for adjudication,
another writ petition, CWJC No. 334 of 2022, was filed before
this Court, again challenging the appointment of the petitioner
on the aforesaid post which was made nearly a decade earlier,
and this Court, without commenting on the merits, disposed of
the case on 13.01.2022, granting liberty to the petitioner namely
Mr. Pankaj Suman to file a representation before the Hon’ble
Chancellor of Universities, or to any other statutory authority
(Annexure P/11 of the Writ Petition).
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
the garb and umbrella of the liberty granted by this Court vide
order dated 13.01.2022, a representation dated 28.01.2022 was
filed by Mr. Pankaj Suman (Annexure P/12 of the Writ Petition)
before the Hon’ble Chancellor, wherein all previous enquiries
were deliberately and intentionally suppressed.
12. The Respondent University by the order of Vice
Chancellor, the Registrar acting in collusion with the
complainant, suppressed records and submitted misleading
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
9/42
information through Letter No. 2620 dated 26.08.2022
(Annexure P/13 of the Writ Petition) before the Hon’ble
Chancellor. The key details, including the petitioner’s selection,
confirmation, and prior auditing report vide Annexure P/8 and
Annexure P/9 in 2017 and 2018 respectively, were concealed.
The University misrepresented the advertisement conditions and
failed to disclose that the petitioner had over five years of
administrative experience in a higher-ranking post than
Assistant Registrar. This deliberate suppression aimed to
prejudice the petitioner.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
on 03.10.2023, the petitioner submitted her written submission
against the said representation, detailing her qualifications and
experiences. She asserted that her previous post as CDPO in
Department of Social Welfare was superior in rank and pay
scale to Assistant Registrar. She emphasized in her Written
Submission that her selection was properly considered by the
Selection Committee and approved by the Executive Council.
The advertisement itself allowed relaxation in qualifications and
experience. Moreover, no complaints had been raised about her
qualifications from her appointment in 2013 until her
confirmation in 2017. She also highlighted that she resigned
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
10/42
from her previous post only on the University’s directive,
making reversion impossible (Annexure P/14 of the Writ
Petition).
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without reviewing the records or advertisement terms, and
misled by the complainant and University’s misrepresentation,
the Hon’ble Chancellor passed a final order on 26.09.2023. The
order stated that while the petitioner met the educational
qualifications, she lacked work experience in the educational
field. This decision was communicated to the petitioner on
06.01.2024, after expiry of more than three months of passing of
the order dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure P/15 of the Writ Petition).
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order dated 26.09.2023 has been passed by ante-dating which is
evident from the fact that though the order shows to be passed
on 26.09.2023 whereas it has been communicated only on
06.01.2024. Moreover, the petitioner has also filed a Written
Submission dated 03.10.2023 which also shows that the order
was not passed till then however same has been passed at a later
stage by ante-dating. As submitted, this appears to have been
done just to get away from the binding judicial pronouncement
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Anil Rai vs. State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
11/42
Bihar reported in 2001 (7) SCC 318 wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court has 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.
And this fact, as submitted by the Learned
counsel for the petitioner, has been done by the Officer
on Special Duty (Judicial) by keeping the Hon’ble
Chancellor in dark just in order to save his skin from
any punitive action which might have been initiated by
the Hon’ble Chancellor against him in administrative
side.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the order issued by the Respondent No. 04 is erroneous, illegal,
and ignores Chapter I, Clause 6(f) of the University Statute,
2011 which is mentioned herein as below : –
Clause 6(f) – Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act or the Statute, the Executive
council may appoint an officer of the Central or
State Government to be the Registrar on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the
Executive Council in consultation with the State
Government.
The Respondent No. 04 failed to consider numerous
instances where government officials, based on administrative
experience, were appointed to non-teaching posts like Registrar
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
12/42
and Deputy Registrar. The said order also overlooked that the
advertisement allowed relaxation in qualifications, including
work experience. The petitioner was compelled to resign from
her previous job due to confirmation as Deputy Registrar,
making it unjust for the University to later question her
qualifications. Additionally, the complaint was filed nearly a
decade after her appointment and should have been dismissed as
stale and baseless.
17. Furthermore, it is manifest that the petitioner not only
held the Educational Qualification but also had more than
sufficient work experience for the post of Deputy Registrar and
had also gained sufficient work experience as Deputy Registrar
for almost 10 years till the date of passing of the impugned
Order. The petitioner, without admitting anything to the
contrary, states that in view of specific provisions in the
advertisement as well as the Statute, for relaxation of
Educational Qualification and/ or Work Experience, coupled
with the fact that petitioner had gained experience of almost 10
years on the post of Deputy Registrar as well as the fact that on
the orders, assurance and promise of the Respondent University,
the petitioner had changed her position and resigned from a
permanent Government post after she was confirmed on the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
13/42
of Deputy Registrar.
18. Learned counsel submits that the impugned
Notification issued vide Memo No. 120 dated 06.01.2024 in the
light of Letter No.- A.K.U.(HC)-02/2022-07/GS(I) dated
03.01.2024 of Governors’ Secretariat, Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna
and the impugned order No. A.K.U-02/2022 dated 26.09.2023
passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor (Respondent No. 04) are
illegal, arbitrary, and perverse and also in violation of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. The orders impugned are
illegal and unsustainable against the petitioner on the Principle
of Promissory Estoppel and Principle of Legitimate Expectation
on the part of Respondent Authorities, since the petitioner was
directed to resign from her previous government post by the
Respondent University and her post got confirmed as Deputy
Registrar by this same respondent authority. Learned counsel
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Maitreyee Chakraborty vs The Tripura University and Ors.
reported in (2024) INSC 616 wherein it was discussed that –
32. In Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2006) 8 SCC 381, this Court observed that the
repository of the legitimate expectation is
entitled to an explanation as to the cause for
denial of the expected benefit flowing from the
representation held out. Ram Pravesh Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
14/42
(supra) was recently followed by the Constitution
Bench in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of
Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799. Chief Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud, speaking for the Constitution
Bench, after felicitously tracing the entire history
of the development of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, held in para 18 as under: —
“18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation in public law is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness
in Government dealings with individuals. It
recognises that a public authority’s promise
or past conduct will give rise to a
legitimate expectation. The doctrine is
premised on the notion that public
authorities, while performing their public
duties, ought to honour their promises or
past practices. The legitimacy of an
expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in
law, custom, or established procedure.”
19. Further, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the order impugned is illegal in light of the Resolution No. 2693
dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Department of HRD, Govt. of
Bihar based on the guidelines of the UGC, New Delhi and also
as none of the ground of termination/dismissal as mentioned in
the Clause 31 of Chapter 2 of the Statutes of the University,
2011, was invoked while terminating the petitioner. Moreover,
mandates of Clause 36 and 39 of Chapter 2 of the said Statute
has not been fulfilled and it shows that the Hon’ble Chancellor
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
15/42
had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of termination and
subject matter of equivalence of posts it is an appellate
authority. The Hon’ble Chancellor is not the competent
authority to decide the equivalence of post, it can only be
decided by an expert committee.
20. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there are catena of Judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the Hon’ble court has discussed
about the role of selection committee so appointed as per the
rules and regulations of the Statues and for the purpose of the
selection of the candidature such as in the case of Dalpat
Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors.
reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305 especially in paragraph 12 the
apex court held –
12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact
that the High Court has rolled the cases of the
two appointees in one, though their appointments
are not assailable on the same grounds, the court
has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over
the decision of the Selection Committee and to
embark upon deciding the relative merits of the
candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is
not the function of the court to hear appeals over
the decisions of the Selection Committees and to
scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates.
Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
16/42
or not has to be decided by the duly constituted
Selection Committee which has the expertise on
the subject. The court has no such expertise. The
decision of the Selection Committee can be
interfered with only on limited grounds, such as
illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Committee or its procedure
vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides
affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that
in the present case the University had constituted
the Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the candidates after going
through all the relevant material before it. In
sitting in appeal over the selection so made and
in setting it aside on the ground of the socalled
comparative merits of the candidates as assessed
by the court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction.
Emphasis supplied
21. In the case of M.V. Thimmaiah and Ors. vs UPSC
and Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119 in paragraph 21, 32 and
39 the apex court held –
21. Now, comes the question with regard to the
selection of the candidates. Normally, the
recommendations of the Selection Committee
cannot be challenged except on the ground of
mala fides or serious violation of the statutory
rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate
Authority to examine the recommendations of the
Selection Committee like the court of appeal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
17/42
This discretion has been given to the Selection
Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court
of appeal to examine the selection of the
candidates nor is the business of the court to
examine each candidate and record its opinion.
…..
32. Our attention was invited to a decision of this
Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S.
Mahajan [(1990) 1 SCC 305 : 1990 SCC (L&S)
80 : (1991) 16 ATC 528] wherein it was
observed as follows: (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12)
“12. … it is not the function of the court to hear
appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits
of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the
duly constituted Selection Committee which has
the expertise on the subject. The court has no
such expertise. … in the present case the
University had constituted the Committee in due
compliance with the relevant statutes. The
Committee consisted of experts and it selected
the candidates after going through all the
relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal
over the selection so made and in setting it aside
on the ground of the so-called comparative
merits of the candidates as assessed by the court,
the High Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction.”
39. It was also pointed out that in the case of
Shri N. Sriraman and Shri K. Ramanna Naik, the
Selection Committee downgraded their reports
from “outstanding” to “very good” yet they were
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
18/42
selected. Similar is the case with Shri K.L.
Lokanatha who has not been selected. Likewise
the Selection Committee upgraded the
assessment for the year 2001-2002 from “very
good” to “outstanding” yet he could not be
selected. Therefore, this is also the process of
selection and the Selection Committee is
constituted by the Commission and headed by the
member of the Commission, we have to trust
their assessment unless it is actuated with malice
or apparent mistake committed by them. It is not
the case of pick and choose, while selection has
been made rationally. The selection by expert
bodies unless actuated with malice or there is
apparent error should not be interfered with. ……
Emphasis supplied
22. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Police vs.
Raj Kumar reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347, in paragraph 28 the
apex court held –
28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot
second guess the suitability of a candidate for
any public office or post. Absent evidence of
malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or
illegality by the public employer, an intense
scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as
unsuitable renders the courts’ decision suspect to
the charge of trespass into executive power of
determining suitability of an individual for
appointment. This was emphasised by this Court
in M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC [M.V. Thimmaiah v.
UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119] which held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
19/42(SCC pp. 131, 135-36, paras 21 & 30)
“21. Now, comes the question with regard
to the selection of the candidates.
Normally, the recommendations of the
Selection Committee cannot be challenged
except on the ground of mala fides or
serious violation of the statutory rules. The
courts cannot sit as an appellate authority
to examine the recommendations of the
Selection Committee like the court of
appeal. This discretion has been given to
the Selection Committee only and courts
rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine
the selection of the candidates nor is the
business of the court to examine each
candidate and record its opinion. …
* * *
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal
can sit as an appellate authority to call for
the personal records and constitute
Selection Committee to undertake this
exercise. This power is not given to the
Tribunal and it should be clearly
understood that the assessment of the
Selection Committee is not subject to
appeal either before the Tribunal or by the
courts. One has to give credit to the
Selection Committee for making their
assessment and it is not subject to appeal.
Taking the overall view of ACRs of the
candidates, one may be held to be very
good and another may be held to be good.
If this type of interference is permitted then
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
20/42
it would virtually amount that the Tribunals
and the High Courts have started sitting as
Selection Committee or act as an appellate
authority over the selection.”
23. Based on the above-mentioned cases the coordinate
bench of this court has also followed and reiterated the above-
mentioned cases in numerous cases such as in the case of
Manoranjan Priyadarshi vs. The Vice Chancellor, Aryabhat
Knowledge University, CWJC No. 4503 of 2015, in paragraph
14 this court held –
14. In my considered view, the Selecting Body
has to follow the conditions laid down in the
Advertisement strictly. However, if there is a
provision to relax the qualification or experience,
this Court will not go back and try to find out
any reasons as to why relaxation was granted. A
person, who has been selected by the Selecting
Body, having lesser experience than the requisite
experience, shall be presumed to have been
granted the relaxation by the Selecting Body and
this Court would not demand an explanation
from the said Selecting Body and it is in their
exclusive domain, as laid down in the
Advertisement itself.
24. Thereafter, in the case of Dr. Raj Kishore Prasad vs.
The Patna University and Ors., L.P.A. No. 1106 of 2011,this
court has held that,
In the matter of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and
others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
21/42
categorically held that the matter of comparative
merits of the candidates should be left to the duly
constituted selection committee. The High Court
went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction in
sitting in appeal over the decision of the
selection committee and in setting it aside.
In the matter of B. C. Mylarappa Alias Dr.
Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah
and Others (2008) 14 SCC 306, the Hon’ble
Court held that in absence of malafide alleged
against the selection committee, the High Court
ought not to have interfered with the selection
made by the selection committee on the basis of
assessment of relative merit. The High Court was
not justified in drawing adverse inference
against the selection committee.
In the Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh
and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 372, once again the
Hon’ble Court reiterated that the Courts, in
exercise of their power of judicial review, should
not interfere with the selection made by the
expert committee.
In the matter of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Dr.
Bhagwan Din Misra and Others (1990) 4 SCC
510, the question was that of appointment of
Reader in “Linguistics”. The expert committee
constituted for selection comprised the experts in
Hindi Language. On close scrutiny of the
relevant statutes, the Hon’ble Court held that the
University had offered two separate and distinct
courses, one in Linguistics and another in Hindi
Language. The Linguistics being distinct and
distinguished from Hindi language and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
22/42
literature, the expert should have comprised the
expert in Linguistics and not in Hindi language.
In the matter of G. N. Nayak Vs. Goa
University and Others (2002) 2 SCC 712, the
Hon’ble Court rejected the challenge on the
ground of bias and upheld the appointment of the
appellant as Professor of Marine Science in
University of Goa.
In my opinion, the learned single Judge has
fallen in manifest error. First; the learned single
Judge has not taken into consideration the delay
in challenge to the selection of the appellant.
Although the appellant was selected and
appointed as early as on 3rd June 2009; his
appointment was approved by the University
Syndicate on 10th June 2009 and the Notification
was issued on 15th July 2009; the petitioners did
not challenge the said selection and appointment
for one and half years and allowed the appellant
to take over as the Principal and function as
such without demur. The petitioners thus allowed
the matter to settle. The aforesaid delay has not
been explained by the petitioners at all. The
learned single Judge ought not to have
entertained the challenge made after
unexplained delay.
Second; the learned single Judge has erred in
holding that the Nara Institute is not recognized
and that the appellant did not acquire requisite
experience of 10 years. I am of the opinion that
the academic matter should best be left for
consideration by the University. The High Court
is not competent to interfere in the academic
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
23/42
matter in exercise of power conferred by Article
226 of the Constitution. That is the view of the
Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Tariq
Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others
(2001) 8 SCC 546.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the impugned order of the Respondent No. 4 is based on two
observations: (i) that the CDPO serves as a supervisory
authority for Anganwadi Centres, and (ii) that the work culture
of a CDPO is not connected with the educational field, as the
role of an Assistant Registrar is fundamentally different, and the
two positions cannot be considered equivalent. However, both
observations are erroneous, legally flawed, perverse, and
contrary to facts and law. The order has been passed by
disregarding, overlooking, suppressing, and misrepresenting the
provisions of the advertisement, the criteria established by the
University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, and Clause
6(f), Chapter I of the Statutes of the University (2011), which
govern the appointment of a Deputy Registrar.
26. The Respondent No. 4 erred in holding that the CDPO
is merely a supervisory post for Anganwadi Centres,
disregarding the fact that it is a State Government Gazetted
Cadre post, superior to the supervisor role. As head of
block/district-level offices and an assistant to the Director at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
24/42
State level, the petitioner’s 11-12 years of administrative
experience as CDPO is equivalent to five years as Assistant
Registrar.
27. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order is unsustainable, as the action of the
expert committee cannot be questioned or reopened after the
petitioner has rendered more than ten years of exemplary
service, merely on the ground of a lack of initial experience,
which has now been rectified by the sheer efflux of time. For,
this averment the learned counsel relied upon the case of
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. etc. vs. Abahi Kumar and
Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328 and the case of Vivek Kaisth
and Anr. vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported
in (2024) 2 SCC 269 wherein the Hon’ble apex court equitably
considered the matter of the appellants and allowed the appeals
and also mentioned that in this type of cases there is a special
equity which leans in favour of the appellant.
28. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 04
submits that although the petitioner had applied for the post of
Deputy Registrar, she neither had experience as an Assistant
Professor in the AGP of Rs. 6,000 and above with experience in
educational administration nor comparable experience in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
25/42
research establishment or other institutes of higher education.
Additionally, the petitioner did not have five years of
administrative experience as an Assistant Registrar in any
university. However, she filled out the application form and
stated that she had ten years and ten months of experience in the
development of education and health services as a C.D.P.O. It is
pertinent to mention that the experience prescribed for the post
of Assistant Registrar is different from that required for the
position of C.D.P.O. Furthermore, the petitioner did not have
three years of experience as a Section Officer or Superintendent
in a central or state university office, nor did she have five years
of experience as an Assistant Professor or Lecturer in a college,
university, or any other autonomous institution with experience
in educational administration.
29. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel that the
post of C.D.P.O can’t be equivalent to the post of Assistant
Registrar. As, the work of C.D.P.O is to supervise the Angan
wadi which relating to the Child Development and the work
culture of the C.D.P.O is not related with the higher educational
field, in this way the nature of work of the C.D.P.O is quite
different from the Assistant Registrar of any University.
30. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
26/42
eligible for the post of Deputy Registrar because she had not
minimum eligibility of experience. This matter has been
examined by the Hon’ble Chancellor in compliance with the
order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 334 of 2022.
In the light of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and report
call from the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor, the University
examines the matter of petitioner and found that she had not
minimum qualification of experience for the post of Deputy
Registrar and accordingly report was submitted.
31. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 mentioned that
the office of the Accountant General has not accepted the report
submitted by the University regarding the matter of petitioner,
this fact evident from the inspection report No.-97/17-18
submitted by the office of the Accountant General. The said
inspection report was issued from the office of the Principal
Accountant General (audit), Bihar, Patna vide letter no-05 dated
17.07.2018 (Annexure R/1 of the Counter Affidavit).
32. Further, with respect to the CWJC 5406 of 2020, the
same had been heard by the coordinate bench of this Court and
this Court has been pleased to dispose of the matter without
giving any observation on merit on dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure
R/2 of the Counter Affidavit).
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
27/42
33. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for
Respondent No. 4 that in compliance with the order dated
13.01.2022 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 334 of 2022, the
Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), Governor’s Secretariat
sought a comprehensive report in the matter of appointment of
petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar, Aryabhatta
Knowledge University, Patna, Bihar vide letter no. AKU-
02/2022-342/GS(1) dated 25.03.2022, and the answering
University incompliance of the letter no. AKU-02/2022-
342/GS(I) dated 25.03.2022, issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner vide letter no. 002/Registrar/023/AKU/2022-992,
dated 08.04.2022, and subsequently the petitioner submitted
details of her reply to the said show cause notice on 18.04.2022.
34. Thereafter, the counsel submits that based on the reply
of the petitioner to the aforesaid Show Cause, the answering
University vide letter no.012/Registrar/023/AKU/ 2022-2620
dated 26.08.2022 submitted a comprehensive report to the
Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) Governor’s Secretarial, Bihar,
Patna, wherein it has been mentioned that “upon meticulous
examination of the provisions contained in Section- ‘B’ of the
Advertisements” and the application form submitted by
petitioner for gaining appointment on the post of Deputy
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
28/42
Registrar in the University, the appointment of petitioner lacks
in her experience to continue on the post of Deputy Registrar in
the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna (Annexure R/3 of
the Counter Affidavit).
35. The order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble
Chancellor (Respondent No. 4) is in compliance of this Court
vide order dated 13.01.2022 passed in CWJC No. 334 of 2022,
and the said order has been received to the answering University
vide letter no. AKU-(HC)-02/2022-07/GS(I) dated 03.01.2024.
The said order of the Respondent No. 04 is passed after hearing
both the parties and on merit.
36. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 also stated that
after hearing the case on different dates and considering the
show cause filed by the petitioner the Respondent No. 04,
thereafter gone through the entire facts of the case and passed an
order wherein it has been observed that “CDPO” generally deals
with the Anganwadi (an institution relating to the Child
Development) and they are the Supervisory authority of
Anganwadi. Nowhere the work culture of the CDPO is
connected with educational field as the work nature of the
Assistant Registrar of any university is quite different and it
can’t be said that both are at par…” and finally passed the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
29/42
that “. The appointment of Smt. Kumari Anjana was not in
consonance with the qualifications required as per the
advertisement”. And cancelled the appointment of the petitioner.
37. Thereafter the answering University in its 49th meeting
of Executive Council dated 05.01.2024, discussed the matter in
length and decided to terminate the service of the petitioner
from the University as Deputy Registrar forthwith,
consequently, the answering University issued a notification
vide memo no. 003/Admn/01-28/AKU/2015 (II) 120 dated
06.01.2024, in light of the decision taken by the Executive
Council of the University in its 49 th meeting held on 05.01.2024,
the service of Smt. Kumari Anjana, Deputy Registrar is
terminated with immediate effect.
38. Lastly, the Learned counsel submitted that after
passing the said order petitioner again filed a show cause dated
03.10.2023 in the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor (In counter)
which is kept on records only, and with respect to the relaxation
of educational qualification and/or work experience the same
cannot be appliedto favor someone. It is further submitted that
no further advertisement was published for relaxation of
educational qualification and/or work experience. Thus, it is
submitted that the petitioner had no minimum experience as per
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
30/42
the advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar and so the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief by this Court.
39. Thereafter, the Learned counsel for the Respondent
No. 5 & 6 in its counter affidavit submitted that the selection of
the petitioner was done following all the due procedure of law.
The petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of Deputy
Registrar. There were total 12 (twelve) candidates appeared for
interview before the Selection Committee duly constituted as
per the Section 22 (b) and 22(b) (iii), Chapter I of the
Aryabhatta Knowledge University Statute 2011 (Annexure R/2
of the Counter Affidavit). The Selection Committee prepared a
list containing marks obtained by the candidates on the basis of
academic records, experience and interview as per provisions
prescribed in the ‘Ordinance’ regarding the procedure to be
followed by the Selection Committee for appointment of
teachers and officers. The petitioner secured first rank among all
the candidates who appeared in the interview (Annexure R/3 &
R/4 of the Counter Affidavit).
40. Subsequently, the recommendation of the Selection
Committee was placed before the 1st Executive Council, notified
by the State Government. The said Executive Council approved
the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its 13th
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
31/42
meeting dated 03.10. 2013 (Annexure R/5 & R/6 of the Counter
Affidavit) and based on approval of the recommendation the
University issued appointment letter of Kumari Anjana at the
post of Deputy Registrar, vide memo no. 356 dated 08.10.2013.
41. Lastly, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5
& 6 submitted regarding the observation by the audit team
regarding the pay structure of the petitioner, it is clarified that
following the explanation of the University regarding the given
pay fixation to the petitioner, there was no particular objection
on her pay fixation, but an observation that the pay fixation of
officers including Deputy Registrar was not approved by the
state government (Annexure-R/1 of the Counter Affidavit by
Respondent 4). Later, the University got State Government
approval on the pay fixation of the petitioner (Annexure R/8 of
the Counter Affidavit).
42. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for both parties, one important question that is
required to discuss herein that “Whether the post of CDPO will
fall under the ambit of ‘Equivalent Post’ as mentioned in the
advertisement dated 19.08.2011 published by the Aryabhatta
Knowledge University?”
43. Now, before considering the rival submissions over
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
32/42
the issue in question, I find it apt to reproduce Section 2 (am) of
the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
Act of 1976) hereunder-
Section 2(am).Other Equivalent
Post – means any other post the scale
of pay of which is equivalent or an
may be declared so by the State
Government.
Emphasis added
44. From a thorough examination of the relevant
provisions of the Bihar State University Act, 1976, the
Aryabhatta Knowledge University Statute of 2011, and the
advertisement dated 19.08.2011 issued by Aryabhatta
Knowledge University inviting applications for various
academic, administrative, and non-teaching positions, including
the post of Deputy Registrar, it is evident that the petitioner
applied for the said post based on her educational qualifications
and her five years of administrative experience as an Assistant
Registrar or in an equivalent position.
45. The Act of 1976 explicitly defines the term
“equivalent post”, as mentioned aforesaid. In light of this, the
determination of an equivalent post should be based on the
petitioner’s previous pay scale while serving as a Child
Development Project Officer (CDPO) in the Department of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
33/42
Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, as per Memo No. 1689
dated 11.10.2000. A review of the records submitted by the
petitioner reveals that her pay scale upon joining as CDPO was
₹6,500-10,500, which was later revised to Pay Band-2 (PB-2)
with a grade pay of ₹4,800, effective from 01.01.2006. She was
subsequently granted the benefit of the 1stACP, placing her in
PB-2 with a grade pay of ₹5,400.
46. In contrast, Annexure P/3 of the writ petition states
that the unrevised pay scale for the post of Assistant Registrar
was ₹5,500-9,000, which was later revised to PB-2 with a grade
pay of ₹4,200, effective from 01.01.2006. Therefore, even after
the revision, the pay scale of the CDPO position remains higher
than that of the Assistant Registrar, thereby justifying the
petitioner’s claim of holding an equivalent post.
47. It would manifest that the post of Deputy Registrar
has been identified as the officer of the University in addition to
the officers mentioned inSection 2 of the Statutes of 2011. The
post of Deputy Registrar is not only a post of repute but it
embodies the functionality of discharging important
administrative function, taking important decisions as well as
representative character. It is a post of high accountability and
high responsibility. Similarly, if the post of Deputy Registrar is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
34/42
pivotal to a university, then the appointment as well as
termination has to be done in a prescribed procedure and it
cannot be an act of haste under the shadows of opaqueness and
subjectivity.
48. Another contention raised and rebut by the parties
regarding the “relaxation of the minimum requirement of
Qualification and/or Experience”, it is found on the perusal of
the record vide Advertisement No. 003/Adm/661-
023/AKU/2011 dated 19.08.2011 annexed in the series of the
Annexure P/2 of the writ petition wherein the respondent
University by the order of the Vice Chancellor issued by the
Registrar under the heading of “RECRUITMENT ACADEMIC,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-TEACHING POSITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS” wherein clause 8(i) of the Section
A, specifically discusses about the rights that a University
reserves. I find it apt to reproduce clause 8(i) of the Section A of
the said General Conditions hereunder –
Section A
8. The University reserves the right to-
a) …….
i) Relax minimum requirements of
qualification and/or experience on the
recommendation of the Screening
/Selection committee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
35/42
Thus, in the light of above-mentioned paras as well as the
general conditions mentioned along with the published
advertisement, I found that it is the sole recommendation of the
selection committee to relax the minimum requirements of
qualification and/or experience and based upon such
recommendation the University’s right reserves to do the
necessary changes accordingly. However, in the present fact and
circumstance of the case, the selection committee did not relax
the minimum requirements of qualification and/or experience
for the appointment of petitioner, and subsequently the
petitioner got selected on merit as recommended by the
selection committee.
49. It is also important to mention here that Respondent
No. 5 & 6 has specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the
Section Committee has been constituted based on the lawful
provisions of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University Statute,
2011, so now it is an undisputed fact the selection committee
has not been constituted as per the provisions and also both the
parties of the present writ petition is not denying this fact.
Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner
specifically the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra);
M.V. Thimmaiah and Ors (supra); and Commissioner of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
36/42
Police (supra) and their respective paras as above mentioned
become relevant and support the case of petitioner. So, I
accordingly relying on these judgments of the Hon’ble apex
court found that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals
over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize
the relative merits of the candidates.
50. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
37/42
51. In my considered view, the petitioner has successfully
undergone probation period and are efficiently serving on the
post of Deputy Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University for
an around nine years and undoubtedly her termination would
not only impinge upon the economic security of the petitioner
and her dependents but also adversely affect her bright career.
This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the petitioner
who got appointment based on the recommendation of selection
committee duly constituted as per the Aryabhatta Knowledge
University Statute, 2011 and approval on dated 03.10.2013 by
first Executive Council duly constituted by the State
Government. However, her continuation in service should
neither give any unfair advantage to the respondent University
nor cause any undue prejudice to the candidates who had not got
selected qua the merit list.
52. Having perused the record produced by the officials
of Raj Bhawan, the court comes to the conclusive finding that
the order in the appeal was passed by antedating it just in order
to defeat the mandatory directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
From the record, it appears that the matter was heard on various
dates and thereafter on 26.09.2023 the order was reserved. On
03.10.2023, the Written arguments were submitted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
38/42
petitioner in the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor but in first
week of January, 2024, i.e., 06.01.2024, the petitioner got a
copy of the judgment. On this aspect, the queries made by the
court but could not be answered by the Officers on Special Duty
(Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty (University) of the
Governore’s Secretariate. They simply tried to evade giving
direct replies by tendering oral apologies. The query of the court
was intended to examine the delay caused in passing of the
order and communication thereof, however, not even a single
satisfactory answer was provided by the Officers on Special
Duty (Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty (University) of the
Governore’s Secretariate except for tendering oral apologies,
thus showing the clear case of ante-dating.
53. The ratio of judgment of Anil Rai (Supra) applies with
full force throughout the country on all the institutions
discharging judicial and quasi- judicial functions. It appears that
just with a view to avoid the mandatory direction passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court prescribing and limiting the period
within which the reserved order has to be delivered, the Officers
on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty
(University) keeping the Hon’ble Chancellor in dark got the
order of appeal signed by ante-dating it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
39/42
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.
57. Before parting, I find it apposite to highlight the grave
issues which have been found during the course of hearing of
instant matter which raises serious concern on the quality of
work, the manner in which it is executed; as well as discharging
of official responsibilities by officials in the Secretariat of
Hon’ble Chancellor.
58. The office of the Hon’ble Chancellor is a statutory
position, and the Hon’ble Governor, by virtue of holding the
post of Governor, assumes the role of Chancellor of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
40/42
Universities of Bihar as per the provisions of the Bihar State
University Act, 1976 and, to assist the Hon’ble Chancellor in
discharging his official, legislative, executive, statutory, and
quasi-judicial functions, officers from the administrative and
judicial services are deputed to the Governor’s Secretariat for a
specific term, in accordance with the prevailing rules and
notifications of the Government of Bihar. These officers, once
posted in the Governor’s Secretariat, are duty-bound to present
accurate facts, relevant statutory provisions, and existing
judicial precedents on various issues. This ensures that the
Hon’ble Chancellor can make well-informed decisions and issue
orders in compliance with statutory provisions and established
judicial pronouncements.
59. However, in the present case, I found allegations of
ante-dating in the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor.
Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to summon Officer on
Special Duty (Judicial), Shri Balendra Shukla, and Officer on
Special Duty (University), Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, along
with the original record of the petitioner’s appeal in a sealed
cover, as per the order dated 21.03.2024. Upon perusal of the
records and upon inquiry from the aforesaid officials, I found
that the allegations of ante-dating had merit. Consequently, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
41/42
officials failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions
posed by the Court and instead tendered their oral apologies.
60. In my considered opinion, the designations of Officer
on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty
(University) are positions of high responsibility and integrity, as
it is their bounden duty to assist the Hon’ble Chancellor in
passing just, fair, and legal orders or directions. However, in the
present case, I find that these responsibilities have not only been
overlooked by the concerned officials but that they have also
deliberately concealed crucial facts, thereby misleading the
Hon’ble Chancellor into passing an erroneous order.
Consequently, I find it appropriate to hold that the concerned
officials “Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on
Special Duty (University)” are unfit for their respective
positions and should be sent for appropriate training.
61. Accordingly, I direct that this order be placed before
the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action
concerning Shri Balendra Shukla, Officer on Special Duty
(Judicial), who holds the rank of Additional District and
Sessions Judge and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble Patna High Court. Furthermore, with respect to Shri
Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Officer on Special Duty (University),
Patna High Court CWJC No.2965 of 2024 dt.05-03-2025
42/42
the Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble
Governor to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chancellor for
necessary action.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
divyanshi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 31.01.2025 Uploading Date 05.03.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link