IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1633 OF 2007 VIJAY KUMAR MEHTA, S/O SRI RAM SUDIST MEHTA, R/O VILLAE HARPUR, PUSA, POLICE STATION PUSA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHAIRMAN, BACKWARD COMMISSION, PATNA. 4.THE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITIES, RAJ BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 6.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA,DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 7.THE REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA,DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 8.THE DIRECTOR, EXTENSION EDUCATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA,DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 9.THE TRAINING ORGANIZER (T.O.), KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA (KVK), MADHOPUR, WEST CHAMPARAN. 10.RANDHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O RAM KRIPAL CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE SRIRAMPUR, AYDHYA, SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS FARM MANAGER, K.V.K, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. 11.SELECTION COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED FOR … AND SELECTION OF FARM MANAGER, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA,DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN CUM THE THEN VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY. 12.DR. H.P. SINGH, THE THEN VICE CHANCELLOR CUM CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED FOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF FARM MANAGER, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA,DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY HOLDING THE POST OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the respondent nos 11 and 12:Mr. Y.V Giri, Sr. Adv, Mr.Rajiv Giri, Adv and Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv. For the University:Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.For the State: A.C to G.A 10, Mr. S.K Jha. ----------- 06/ 05.09.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the prayer made by the petitioner reads as follows:- “(i)For quashing of the selection made pursuant to the Notice No. 01/06 2 dated 27.05.2006 and contained in Annexure-9, published under the signature of the Director, Extension Education of respondent Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as the University) as the selection process has not been made in accordance with the guidelines of the University and violating the official orders dated 21.06.2006 as contained in Annexure-11 and violating the Rule of reservation. (ii)For issuance of the writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to engage the petitioner as Farm Manager against the vacant post in Krishi Vigyan Kendra (K.V.K) under direct control of the respondent University giving extension either as fresh appointment in the light of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-9 or extending his contractual appointment as per Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. (iii) For payment of contractual salary due for the period 01.04.2006 to 31st August, 2006 in the light of further extension made by the order dated 15th July, 2006 (Annexure-6). (iv) For issuance of direction commanding the respondents to prepare merit list considering the Rule of reservation as the said same has not been followed while making engagement in pursuant to the Advertisement no. 01/06 dated 27th May, 2006(Annexure-9) as none of the higher marks holder of the reserve category has been included in the merit list against the general category post. (v)For awarding cost for making illegal appointment and breaking the Rule of Reservation against the respondents concerned.” At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to aforementioned prayer would submit that during the pendency of this writ 3 application the salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2006 has already been paid and as such one of the aforementioned prayer has become infructuous. As with regard to the rest of the prayers, this Court would find that the matter was considered on earlier occasions and ultimately an order was passed on 01.08.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “In view of the record produced by the learned counsel for the University and the stand taken by the respondent, Selection Committee, this Court would feel necessity of filing of separate affidavit by all the eight signatories on the merit list as contained in Annexure- R/2 including the members of the Selection Committee through the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Selection Committee, explaining therein:- (i) What was the norm prescribed and followed by the members of the Selection Committee in awarding the marks in an interview as also what was the norm for giving marks for academic records? (ii) Whether the cutting made in respect of serial nos. 7, 35, 36, 41, 42, 56, 61 and 98 in the details of marks of the candidate was made by the Chairman of the Selection Committee after approval of the members and/or with their consent? Let it be made clear that any Member/Observer of the 4 Selection Committee, who has put in his signature on the details of the marks as contained in Annexure R/2, would be further answerable for any forgery or fraud detected by this Court in the preparation of the mark- sheet. Let the original records, produced by the learned counsel for the University, be kept in a sealed cover.” Today, Mr. Y.V Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Harish Chandra Prasad Singh, who was the then Vice-chancellor of the Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as the University) has drawn attention to the following explanation given by Mr. Singh, the then Vice Chancellor in response to the aforementioned queries: “That it is stated that the respondent no. 12 for the first time to ensure that good, able persons are engaged on contractual basis, constituted the aforesaid committee. In the past there was no such committee and such kinds of engagements were made in routine manner. The members nominated in the committee were highly qualified, holding higher positions in the University and having good service record. Chairman of the Committee, Sri Madan Singh was then Director, Extention Education, who was mainly responsible for the functioning of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), in the University and is now working as Principal, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, RAU, Pusa. It is relevant to give details of the other 5 members also, Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary, who was member of the Selection Committee, was Deputy Director Training and Zonal Coordinator, KVKs, and is now working as University Professor and Chairman Department of Extention Education in the University. Dr. Nawal Kishore Choudhary, who was nominated as Observer, and who has now retired, was then the University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, Department of Agronomy, RAU, Pusa. Dr. Arunima Kumari, who was member of the Selection Committee, was then the Training Organiser KVK, Pipra Kothi, West Champaran, and is now working as Associate Professor, Extention Education, College of Home Science, RAU, Pusa. Dr. Pancham Kumar Singh, who was member of Selection Committee, was training organizer, KVK, Vaishali (nominee of respondent no. 12), and is now working as Principal, College of Horticulture, Noorsarai, Nalanda, Biharshariff. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sinha, who was member of selection Committee , was/is Associate Director, Extention Education, RAU, Pusa. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar, who was member of the Selection Committee, was then Deputy Director, Administration, RAU, Pusa, and is now working as Professor, Department of Genetics, Faculty of Basic Science, RAU, Pusa and Dr. K.R. Maurya, who was also one of the member of the Selection Committee, was then the Dean Agriculture, and had also acted as Incharge Vice Chancellor from 05.05.2005 to 04.12.2005. He has now superannuated. 6.That it is stated that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 01.08.2011 has been pleased to direct to clarify in regard to cutting made in respect of serial no. 7, 35, 36, 41, 42, 56, 61 and 98 in the details of marks of candidate (Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 11). The deponent was apprised that earlier the marks were given on the basis of the total marks awarded by the individual members on the rough sheets individually. 6 However, the matter was again considered by the members of the Selection Committee collectively and they gave a re-look keeping the performance of the candidates in the interview and accordingly marks were reallocated. The marks were given by the cutting the original marks given to the candidates. The entire cuttings on the marksheet were authenticated by the Chairman by counter signing the said cuttings which was agreed by all the members by putting their signatures. In this background, the respondent no. 12 had no reason to disbelieve the committee, the members of which were holding high position. “ In the considered opinion of this Court the aforementioned innocent statement of the ex-vice chancellor could have made some impact, had it not been ultimately found that at least those candidates who were selected and appointed, there was at least even one whose marks had not been changed by making cuttings and interpolation in the broadsheet of the interview. The explanation of Mr. Giri that all these selected persons were in fact also working on casual basis is also belied in the light of entry made in respect of five persons namely serial no. 1 Satendra Prasad Singh serial no. 23 Satish Kumar, 7 serial no. 38 Subhash Chandra serial no. 39 Arif Parwez and serial no. 54 Vijay Kumar Mehta against whose name only in the remarks column they were shown to be working hands in the University. thus it becomes clear that rest 55 of 60 candidates were definitely freshers. It therefore, becomes clear from a bare perusal of Annexure-R/2 to this counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 11 being the broadsheet of the computation of marks of Academic records and interview that the cutting was made either by the Director in capacity of the Chairman of the Selection Committee with a malafide intention or by the members of the Selection Committee, for getting such freshers appointed after changing the marks in interview. The story of there being a rough sheet in absence of such document produced before this Court also does not inspire confidence and therefore, this court will have no hesitation in holding that whatever their credentials may be as has been highlighted by the Ex-Vice- chancellor in paragraph no. 5 of his 8 counter affidavit, their conduct in course of making such selection would pose a serious question mark on their honesty and integrity. It is really unfortunate that the persons who are entrusted with the duty of making fair selection have indulged in making illegal appointment by changing the marks in the broad sheet and that too without any cogent explanation. The explanation given by them in this affidavit infact also does not get support from the others records which have been produced by the learned counsel for the University today. The submission of Mr. Giri, however, that these were contractual employment for the period of six months or that out of 29 persons so selected 27 of them have already left the services would only partly mitigate the deliberate dubious act of misconduct on the part of the members of the Selection Committee, its Chairman as also the then Vice-chancellor all of whom collectively responsible in favouring outsiders candidates for making them gainer even by giving temporary employment at the 9 expense of other meritorious candidate including the petitioner. This Court infact could have taken the matter for more seriously by directing initiation of a criminal prosecution against the Ex Vice- chancellor, the Chairman and the member of the Selection Committee but taking into account the nature of appointment and the passage of time, wherein, most of them have also ceased to be in employment of the University, this court would like to close the matter by directing each of them to pay cost of Rs. 5000/- each to Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one month from today. This court however, must make it clear that as the entire panel was tainted and 27 out of 29 persons have already left the service, the remaining two also even they may still be continuing on the basis of periodical extension given by the University but they will get no weightage as and when the University will advertise the post for regular appointment and they will be given no credit on the basis of their experience acquired in view of their 10 initial six months appointment on the post of Farm Manager and infact they will also have to compete like any other general candidates from open market barring age relaxation. This Court also hopes that in future whenever an assignment is given to the Respondents no. 13 and other members of Selection Committee they will act in a bonafide manner without indulging into similar type of corrupt practice, and bungling. They must remember that by making tainted selection by bestowing favour to one person means to depriving another meritorious candidate. The whole purpose of appointment by following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 gets frustrated if a person of below merit is placed above by the dubious role of the members of the Selection Committee. This Court would not like to say nothing more but it must direct the concerned authority of the University and they should be more careful in future while making the appointment on these lower posts because now it has also become clear that 11 no definite norms was laid down for assessing academic standard future. In future while constituting the Selection Committee, the University will be required to lay down the norms for grant of marks either on the head of the academic record for interview without leaving the matter at the discretion of the members of the Selection Committee. The issue relating to illegality in the appointment of the respondent no. 10 and one Satyendra Prasad Singh two of them who are still continuing in service shall be gone into by the Vice-chancellor and he may also take a decision not to extend their service beyond the last extension given to them as their initial selection and appointment was also tainted. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Let the records produced by the learned counsel for the University be returned back to him. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)