NUTAN KUMARI versus B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

NUTAN KUMARI versus B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

The Court concurred with the Single Judge that the Selection Committee’s process was arbitrary and vitiated the selection because the Committee fixed a 100‑mark scheme and split marks (including 30 for interview) on the day of interview without disclosure in the advertisement, conducted multiple interviews for the same candidates on the same day with erratic variations in interview marks, and thereby the selections were invalid; respondent No.6 was ineligible by age under the applicable cut‑off and his appointment was void; the Division Bench judgment was quashed and the Single Judge’s order restoring cancellation of the appointments was reinstated, with a direction for a fresh, properly...

Parties
Appellant: Nutan Kumari; Respondent No.1: B.R.A. Bihar University; Respondent No.6: Chandrama Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Civil appeals allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment quashed and set aside; Single Judge judgment restored; appointment orders quashed and set aside; directions issued for fresh selection
Legal Topics
Selection Process and Criteria, Relaxation of Advertised Norms, Vested Rights in Recruitment, Natural Justice/notice Before Termination, Age Eligibility
Service Law Administrative Law Public Employment Selection Process and Criteria Relaxation of Advertised Norms Vested Rights in Recruitment Natural Justice/notice Before Termination Age Eligibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nutan Kumari

Appellant

B.R.A. Bihar University

Respondent No.1

Chandrama Singh

Respondent No.6

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Division Bench was justified in setting aside the Single Judge’s order canceling appointments and quashing terminations
  2. 2 Whether the Selection Committee could fix or alter detailed selection criteria (marks distribution) not disclosed in the advertisement and whether that vitiated the selection
  3. 3 Whether wide variations in interview marks assigned by the same Committee in multiple interviews for the same candidate on the same day rendered the selection arbitrary and liable to be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concurred with the Single Judge that the Selection Committee’s process was arbitrary and vitiated the selection because the Committee fixed a 100‑mark scheme and split marks (including 30 for interview) on the day of interview without disclosure in the advertisement, conducted multiple interviews for the same candidates on the same day with erratic variations in interview marks, and thereby the selections were invalid; respondent No.6 was ineligible by age under the applicable cut‑off and his appointment was void; the Division Bench judgment was quashed and the Single Judge’s order restoring cancellation of the appointments was reinstated, with a direction for a fresh, properly...

Court Disposition

Civil appeals allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment quashed and set aside; Single Judge judgment restored; appointment orders quashed and set aside; directions issued for fresh selection

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.05.2011 quashed and set aside
  • Judgment of the Single Judge dated 10.02.2011 restored