CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.17804 OF 2009 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------- 1-DR. BIMAL PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH R/O MOH- MRITUNJAY CHATTERJEE LANE, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT. PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS READER, DEPTT. OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, A.N. COLLEGE, PATNA 2-DR. SHAILAJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O SRI HARESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA R/O GAYATRI TAPO GRIHA, CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, P.S. PATRAKARNAGAR, DISTT. PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, CO-OPERATIVE COLLEGE, BEGUSARAI 3-DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI BHAHERAN MAHTO R/O KRISHNA GHAT, PATNA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTT. PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS LECTURER, DEPTT. OF HISTORY, NALANDA COLLEGE, BIHARSHARIF 4-DR. KUMAR VIRENDRA SINHA S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD R/O E-103, MONICA APARTMENT, KHAJPURA, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTT.-PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS READER & HEAD DEPTT. OF PHYSICS, B.S. COLLEGE, DANAPUR 5-DR. BRAJESH KUMAR RAI S/O SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD R/O L-121, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTT. GAYA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS LECTURER, DEPTT. OF HINDI, A.M. COLLEGE, GAYA 6-DR. (SMT.) PRITPAL KAUR W/O MADHUSUDAN SINGH R/O SALIMPUR AHARA, DWARKA NATH LANE (BOULIA), P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTT. PATNA 7-DR. PHULO PASWAN S/O LATE KHEYALI PASWAN R/O VILL- MAKIA, P.S. BENIPATTI, DISTT. MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, V.S.J. COLLEGE, RAJNAGAR (MADHUBANI) UNDER L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA 8-DR. MANOJ KUMAR S/O PROF. (DR.) A.S. YADAV R/O ROAD NO. 13, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS LECTURER, DEPTT. OF BOTANY, COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, KANKARBAGH, PATNA ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1-THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2-THE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA 3-THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, THROUGH THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 4-THE VICE-CHANCELLOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION COMMITTEE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 5-THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 6-DR. OM PRAKASH SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, A.N.S. COLLEGE, NABINAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD 7-DR. (MRS.) USHA VIDYARTHI W/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, MAHILA COLLEGE, KHAGAUL, DISTT.-PATNA 2 8-DR. VINAY KRISHNA TIWARY S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, G.J. COLLEGE, RAMBAGH, BIHTA, DISTT.-PATNA 9-DR. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, DAUDNAGAR COLLEGE, DAUDNAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD 10-DR. (MRS.) SHEELA SINGH W/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, R.M.W. COLLEGE, NAWADA 11-DR. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR VERMA S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.M.D. COLLEGE, PUNPUN, DISTT. PATNA 12-DR. UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.P.M. COLLEGE, UDANTPURI, DISTT. NALANDA 13-DR. VIJAY SHANKER RAI S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, R.L.S.Y. COLLEGE, BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT. PATNA 14-DR. (MRS.) REKHA KUMARI W/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, NALANDA MAHILA COLLEGE, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.-NALANDA 15-DR. DINESH PRASAD SINHA S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, R.L.S.Y COLLEGE, AURANGABAD, DISTT. AURANGABAD 16-DALBIR SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.G.G.S. COLLEGE, PATNA CITY, DISTT. PATNA 17-DR. MD. SHAMSUL ISLAM S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.M.S.G. COLLEGE, SHERGHATI, DISTT.-GAYA 18-DR. SUNIL SUMAN S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, T.S. COLLEGE, HISUA, DISTT. NAWADA 19-DR. ARJUN SHARMA S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, K.L.S. COLLEGE, NAWADA 20-DR. BAIDYANATH THAKUR S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, J.N.L. COLLEGE, KHAGAUL, DISTT. PATNA 21-DR. DILIP KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, M.D. COLLEGE, NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA 22-DR. SATISH SINGH CHANDRA S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, M.M. COLLEGE, BIKRAM, DISTT.-PATNA 23-DR. SATYENDRA PRAJAPATI S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.N.S. COLLEGE, TIKARI, DISTT. GAYA 24-DR. (MRS.) MEERA KUMARI W/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, G.B.M. COLLEGE, GAYA 25-DR. JITENDRA RAJAK S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, R.R.S. COLLEGE, MOKAMA, DISTT. PATNA 26-DR. DINESH PRASAD KAMAL S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.N.SINHA COLLEGE, WARISALIGANJ, DISTT. NAWADA 27-DR. VIJAY RAJAK S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.D. COLLEGE, KALER, DISTT. ARWAL 3 28-DR. BINOD KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, D.B. COLLEGE, JAINAGAR (L.N.M.U.), DISTT. MADHUBANI 29-DR. ARUN KUMAR RAJAK S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.B.A.N. COLLEGE, DARHETTA LARI, DISTT. JEHANABAD 30-DR. SHASHI PRATAP SHAHI S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, NALANDA COLLEGE, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT. NALANDA 31-DR. DHRUB KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, A.N.S. COLLEGE, BARH, DISTT. PATNA 32-VISHUNDEO RAJAK S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.U. COLLEGE, HILSA, DISTT. NALANDA ………………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.17993 oF 2009 1-DR. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL.- CHOWRI, P.O.- DHANCHHUHAN, P.S.- CHOWRI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARRA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, PATNA, A CONSTITUENT UNIT OF MAGADH UNIVERSITY ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1-THE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY RAJBHAWAN, PATNA 2-THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3-THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR BODHGAYA, GAYA 4-THE VICE-CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODHGAYA, GAYA 5-THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA. ………………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.5730 oF 2010 1-DR. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI SAHDEO NARAYAN SINGH R/O FLAT NO. 203, SERVAKUNJ APARTMENT AT MAHESH NAGAR, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT.- PATNA ………………PETITIONER Versus 1-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA 2-MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 3-VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 4-REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr.Siya Ram Shahi, Adv., Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Adv. and Mr.Narayan Singh, Adv. For Respondent Nos.6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18 and 20 :Mr.R.B.Mahto, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Ajay Behari Sinha, Adv. For Respondent Nos.15, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 32 : Mr.Vinod Kumar Kantha, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Ajay 4 Behari Sinha, Adv. For Respondent no.11: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For Respondent Nos.12, 17 to 25, 27, 29 and 32 : Mr.Rabi Bhushan Prasad- 1, Adv. For Respondent no.14: Mr.D.K.Sinha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Umesh Kumar Verma, Adv. and Mr.Satyendra Prasad, Adv. For Respondent Nos.3, 13, 16, 30 and 31 : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr.Adv., Mr.R.K.Giri, Adv., Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Adv. and Mr.Priyank Deepak, Adv. (in CWJC No.17804 of 2009) For The Petitioner : Mr.Banwari Sharma, Adv. and Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv. For The Respondent : GP-22 (in CWJC No.17993 of 2009) For The Petitioner : Mr.Amresh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Chancellor : Mr.Shivendra Kishore, Adv. For the University : Mr.Anil Sinha, Adv. (in CWJC No.5730 of 2010) ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Jayanandan Singh, J: These three writ applications have been taken up and heard together as the issues raised in them are common. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved with the selection process held by the respondent University for appointment of principals on regular basis in its constituent colleges, in which respondent nos. 7 to 32 were selected and appointed and the petitioners of the writ applications were unsuccessful. Petitioners of the first writ application have prayed for quashing of notification contained in Memo No.64/2009 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure-4), by which, under the signature of the Registrar of the respondent University, a panel of successful candidates under 5 different categories was notified, which was meant to be taken into account for filling up future vacancies also. They have further prayed for quashing of Notification contained in Memo No.65/2009 dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-5), 96-01/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure-7) and 96-02/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure- 8), by which, in different transactions, the respondents have been appointed as principals of different constituent colleges of the University. Further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to advertise the post of principals afresh, after quashing the above said notification. Prayer has also been made for restraining the respondents from joining and performing their duties and to further restrain the respondents from making any more appointment on the post of principal from the said impugned panel. The sole petitioner of the 2nd case has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on a vacant sanctioned post of principal with all consequential benefits. The sole petitioner of the 3rd case, though of the same name, has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the respondents to award him three more marks for research papers and appoint him as principal with all consequential benefits. Apart from these three independent writ applications, some interventions have also been sought for in the matter by different parties. One I.A. No. 4663 of 2010 has been filed by one Smt. Kanchana Singh seeking to intervene in the 1st writ application in opposition, as she was affected by 6 interim order passed by this Court on 21.12.2009, by which the respondent University was restrained from making any further appointment from the existing panel. The writ petitioner of the 2nd case has also filed an I.A., No. 5254 of 2010, in the first case to intervene as respondent with a prayer to extend the validity of the panel, in view of the order of stay passed by this Court, in the light of the doctrine „Actus curiae neminem gravabit‟. He also filed two I.As, namely, I.A. No.4490 of 2010 and I.A. No.5132 of 2010, in his own writ application for vacating the order of stay passed by this Court in the first case and also praying for holding that period of stay of the panel should not be counted for period of validity of the panel. One more I.A. is on record of the first case, namely, I.A. No. 8443 of 2009, which was filed on behalf of the petitioners for restraining the respondents from appointing any person on the post of principals from the impugned panel which was taken up and considered by a Bench of this Court and interim order dated 21.12.2009 was passed restraining the respondent University from making any further appointments from the panel. The facts of the case, in brief, is that an advertisement was published by the respondent University in the daily newspaper on 25.10.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for their selection and appointment on the post of principals of constituent colleges of the University. The total vacancies notified through 7 the advertisement were 22, out of which 8 were of General category, 6 of Scheduled Caste category (SC), 1 of Scheduled Tribe category (ST) and 7 of Extremely Backward Class category (EBC). The advertisement mentioned that the details of eligibility and other requirements could be found on the website of the University, address of which was given therein. It is stated that altogether 351 applications were received by the University, all of whom were called for interview, to be held from 3.2.2009 to 7.2.2009 and 11.2.2009. For the scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates, under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, a Selection Committee was constituted, comprising of 7 members, vide notification dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure- 2). For consideration of eligibility and comparative merit of the candidates, as per Statute of the University, total marks were allotted as 100, out of which maximum 71 marks were fixed for academic qualification from matriculation onwards, 9 marks were fixed for publication of research papers, maximum up to three in number and maximum 20 marks were fixed for interview. The candidates were interviewed on the dates fixed and, as per the yardstick, a chart was prepared by the Selection Committee (Annexure-3) of all the 351 candidates, in the seriatim of their application form numbers and category-wise, with separate columns for category, total marks for academic achievements, research paper, interview, grand total and rank. The details of the petitioners, as appearing in the said chart, is also mentioned by the petitioners in 8 paragraph 14 of the writ application. Thereafter, on the basis of this chart the impugned panel was prepared, selecting 23 candidates of different categories and the impugned orders for appointment were issued. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by selection of candidates on the basis of the said chart, award of marks for publication/research, award of marks in interview, allegedly done malafide and arbitrarily and on extraneous considerations, and preparation of the impugned panel on that basis. They have pointed out anomalies in the preparation of the said chart and the said panel. They have prepared a summary chart of selected and left over candidates which is Annexure-9 to the writ application. It is contended that it will be apparent from the summary chart that several candidates, who ought to have been placed higher than the empanelled candidates, have been deliberately left out for no conceivable reasons. It has also been contended that, persons, who had secured very high marks for academic achievements, have been deliberately allotted very low marks in interview, so that their ranking may shift down. The list of such candidates has been annexed with the writ application as Annexure-10. Another list of candidates who have secured much low marks in academic achievements, but have been allotted much high marks in the interview, has been annexed as Annexure-11 with the writ application. Elaborating the grievances of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on their behalf submitted 9 that through the advertisement altogether 22 posts of principals were advertised, out of which 8 posts had to be filled up from General category candidates, 6 from SC category candidates, 7 from EBC category candidates and one from ST category candidates. In response to the advertisement no application was received for appointment under ST category. Hence, only 21 vacancies were to be filled up on the basis of applications received. However, the respondents have filled up 6 more vacancies out of the panel prepared, for which there was no advertisement and no applications were invited. Out of the said 6, 2 were of General category, two were of BC-II/OBC category and one was of Sikh Minority category. It was submitted that the vacancies of BC-II/OBC category and Sikh Minority category were not advertised at all and, therefore, the same could not be filled up on the basis of the advertisement published. It was pointed out that there was no mention in the advertisement that any subsequent vacancy, becoming available later on, may also be filled up from the panel prepared on the basis of the said advertisement and it was also not mentioned in the advertisement that the vacancies were likely to increase or the panel was to be kept valid for filing up future vacancies. It was submitted that the relevant provision of the Statute, providing for the panel to remain valid for one year, was only for the purpose of filling up of any post, so advertised, remaining vacant on account of non-joining of any candidate. It was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling 10 up of any vacancy which may have become available after the advertisement and after the panel was prepared and finalized. It was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling up of vacancies of any category which was not notified in the advertisement itself as, in absence of such notification in the advertisement, large number of candidates of the said category may not have applied at all. It was next submitted that the chart prepared by the Selection Committee, as contained in Annexure-3, shows that against the name of many candidates an endorsement was made that they were „not found suitable‟. This clearly shows that the said candidates were put out of the consideration zone only on the subjective consideration by the Selection Committee, for which no valid reasons were mentioned in the said Chart. There being no cut-off/pass marks in either academic achievements or publication/research or interview, no candidate could be put out of consideration zone merely because of some reasons which the Selection Committee, at the time of preparation of the chart, may have thought appropriate. It was also contended that the selection elsewhere, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, could not be a valid ground in law for eliminating any candidate from zone of consideration. Still, just to deprive meritorious candidates the chances of appointment, they have not been considered only on the ground that they were selected elsewhere. It is also contended that the markings of the Selection Committee like „selected elsewhere‟, „service not confirmed‟, „not found 11 suitable‟, and „not found fit‟ by the Selection Committee in the chart against the individual names, only show that the Selection Committee, on its own whim and caprice, put candidates out of consideration zone on different grounds which were neither supported by any Act or Statute, nor by any stipulation in the advertisement. It was next submitted that the said chart prepared by the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991, which requires that a combined merit list of successful candidates, strictly according to their merits, irrespective of their category, is to be prepared first, and the vacancies of General category has to be filled up from this merit list strictly in seriatim and then only the left over merit list has to be segregated as per the reservation category and the vacancies of reserved category has to be filled up from such list of reserved category candidates. As against this, Annexure-3 shows that the chart, at the initial stage itself, was prepared category-wise, thus depriving many of the reserved category candidates from consideration for appointment as General category candidate on their own merits. It was also pointed out that about 14 candidates of General category had secured total 73 marks, out of whom 11 were empanelled and three were selected. It is not mentioned by the Selection Committee in the chart or in the panel as to on what consideration ranking was fixed among the said 14 candidates who had secured equal marks and under what consideration 3 out of them were appointed. It was 12 pointed out that this also shows that the Selection Committee, for no valid reasons, adopted pick and choose policy and picked up the 3 candidates from amongst the 14, who had secured equal marks for their appointment, as per their personal choice. It was next contended that as per the Statute, total 9 marks had to be allotted for publication/research with three marks for each paper. Thus, if three or more research papers of a candidate were published in standard journals the candidate was entitled for allotment of full 9 marks. It was submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 had presented more than three research papers of their‟s, published in standard journals, still they were not allotted full 9 marks under this head and, therefore, their comparative ranking in the merit list came down. It was also contended that the list of standard journals, recognized by the University, were not notified with the advertisement, which gave leverage to the Selection Committee not to consider a paper published by a candidate in the particular journal for awarding of marks. It was submitted that the respondents deliberately left it vague, so that the Selection Committee may manipulate the marks under this head in favour or against a particular candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the marks allotted to different candidates under different heads, as appearing in the said chart (Annexure-3), and showed that in a large number of cases, candidates who had secured very high marks under academic achievements, and/or 13 research/publication, were allotted shockingly low marks in interview. He also showed that, to the contrary, in many cases, the candidates who had secured very low marks under the head of academic achievements, and/or research/publication, were allotted very high marks in interview. He submitted that this showed that, in the interview, marks were allotted to the candidates by the Selection Committee in a planned manner, to cause illegal benefits to undeserving candidates, by ensuring that they get much higher ranking in the merit and get the appointment, whereas other deserving candidates who were not favoured by the Selection Committee, were relegated to lower stages in merit by awarding them shockingly low marks in interview. It was also pointed out that, for appointment as Principal in the category of Sikh Minority, the respondent no.16 was selected who had secured total 57 marks only and was not a Ph.D, whereas petitioner no.6, who was also of the same category, had secured 73 marks, but was left out. It was submitted that the explanation, which is now being given by the respondents in the counter affidavit, that petitioner no.6 was to superannuate soon and respondent no.16 had worked with the University as O.S.D., could not be a relevant and valid consideration in law for ignoring the preferential claim of petitioner no.6. It was also submitted that the Selection Committee had kept the result pending for abnormally long period of four months, only with a view to debar some of the candidates, who had appeared in the interview in other Universities also and were 14 lateron selected, and then to put them out of consideration zone only on the ground that they had been „selected elsewhere‟ which could not be a valid ground in law for their non-consideration. It was also pointed out that many of the respondents who have been appointed are/were teachers of 4th-phase colleges and their services were not approved on the date of issue of the Notification containing the Panel and their subsequent appointment vide Notification dated 9.6.2009. It was also pointed out that, in particular, respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 16 were not confirmed on that date in service and their services were confirmed as teachers of the University only after their appointment as principals of the constituent colleges, which clearly vitiated the entire selection process and the appointments made on that basis. It was also pointed out that against the name of one candidate namely, Dr. Pramila Pathak (application no.24) a note was made in the chart (Annexure-3) that her services were not confirmed. Hence, she was not considered, whereas above said respondents were considered and appointed, although their services also were not confirmed on their date of appointment. It was further pointed out that respondent no.7 was appointed as teacher in 2003 only and his service was also not confirmed and there was already a vigilance enquiry pending against him. Still ignoring all these he was appointed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of the 15 Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Madan Mohan Singh [1994 Suppl.(3) SCC 308], Krishna Chandra Sahu Vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1996 SC 352), The State of Orissa Vs. Raj Kishore Nanda [2010 (3) PLJR (SC)165], Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht [2010 (3) PLJR (SC) 100] and Rakhi Ray Vs. High Court of Delhi [2010 (2) PLJR (SC) 26]. In respect of criteria to be adopted for selection of candidates having obtained equal marks in aggregate, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Pandey Venktesh Pd.Sinha Vs. State of Bihar (1988 PLJR 102 (DB). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWJC No. 5730 of 2010 adopted the submissions made by learned counsel in the first case and submitted that his petitioner was also having 76 marks, but was not considered, whereas other candidates having the same marks were considered and appointed without any rationale behind the same and also submitted that his petitioner had submitted 3 publication/research papers, published in recognized journals and, therefore, his petitioner should have been allotted full 9 marks under that head. Besides, learned counsels who appeared for the State of Bihar, the Chancellor of the Universities and for Magadh University, Mr. Rambalak Mahto, Mr.Vinod Kumar Kantha, Mr.Y.V.Giri, Mr.D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocates, and some other advocates, appeared for different sets of private respondents. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the writ petitions were not maintainable, as the petitioners had 16 participated in the selection process and, after having failed to get selected, have challenged the process. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik Vs. State of Uttrakhand