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

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 12-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 699 : 2023 INSC 966
699
CASE DETAILS
NUTAN KUMARI 
v.
B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6232-6236 of 2013)
OCTOBER 12, 2023 
[HIMA KOHLI AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High 
Court was justifi ed in allowing the appeals fi led by the Physical Training 
Instructors-PTIs in four diff erent colleges under the University and quashing 
the order of termination of services of the PTIs passed by the Single Judge 
of the High Court. 
Service law – Selection process adopted by the Selection Committee 
– Challenged to – Invitation of applications by the University for 
appointment of Physical Training Instructors-PTIs in four of its 
constituent colleges – Applications submitted by the appellant and 
the private respondents, thereafter called for interviews – Selection 
Committee conducted four diff erent sets of interviews for each candidate 
applying to four colleges, on the same day – Good variation in the 
marks assigned to the candidates in the interview – Selection of the 
private respondents – Single Judge of the High Court holding that the 
selection as fl awed and arbitrary, terminated the services of the private 
respondents – However, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed 
the order of termination – Correctness: 
Held: Once an advertisement has been issued and the selection criteria 
prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so, by the 
Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately demonstrated that 
it had the power to do so – Finding of the Single Judge of the High Court 
that the entire process adopted by the Selection Committee was arbitrary, 
irrational, and is liable to be set aside, is concurred with – Criteria fi xed 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
by the Selection Committee was neither revealed in the advertisement, nor 
disclosed to the candidates prior to or even at the time of conducting the 
interviews – Selection Committee on its own fi xed a total of 100 marks and 
assigned diff erent marks for diff erent academic qualifi cations, 30 per cent 
of the total marks was fi xed for interview, on the day of the interview itself 
– Instead of conducting a single interview for each candidate particularly, 
since all of them had applied and submitted separate applications for seeking 
appointment in the four constituent colleges under the University, the 
Selection Committee conducted four sets of interviews in respect of each of 
the candidates who had applied for appointment in diff erent colleges – Close 
look at the marks assigned in the interviews showed the erratic assessment 
made by the Members of the Selection Committee – Thus, the impugned 
judgment cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside – Judgment of 
the Single Judge is restored – Appointment orders in respect of the private 
respondents are quashed and set aside. [Para 13, 14, 15, 18]
Service jurisprudence – Selection Process – Power of Selection 
Committee:
Held: Selection process is bound by the terms and conditions of an 
advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates – Unless it 
can be demonstrated that an advertisement has been issued contrary to any 
Statute or the applicable rules, it is binding on all the participants – Even the 
Selection Committee does not have the jurisdiction to lay down a separate 
yardstick or basis for selection as that would be tantamount to legislating 
rules of selection – Once the process of selection commences, the criteria 
prescribed in the advertisement for conducting the selection of the eligible 
candidates cannot be altered – Once an advertisement has been issued and 
the selection criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, 
more so, by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately 
demonstrated that it had the power to do so – If the selection criteria is 
tinkered with in midstream, a party can have a legitimate grievance. [Para 
10, 10.4]
Service jurisprudence – Appointment/selection – Vested right of 
selection: 
Held: Merely by applying for a post pursuant to an advertisement, a 
candidate does not automatically acquire any vested right of selection – He 
701
only acquires a right for being considered for selection strictly in accordance 
with the extant rules. [Para 10.3]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others 
(1995) 6 SCC 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.