Page 1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    4270        OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10964 of 2010)

Naushad Anwar & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

State of Bihar & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4271           OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12527 of 2010)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4272          OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17421 of 2010)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4273      OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23850 of 2010)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4274     OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23852 of 2010)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4275     OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20584 of 2010)

1

Page 2

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 10th  

March, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna  

whereby CWJC No.17734 of 2009 filed by the appellants has  

been  dismissed.  The  short  question  that  arises  for  

consideration  is  whether  the  appellants  were  eligible  for  

appointment  as  librarians  in  the  schools  run  by  the  local  

bodies in the State of Bihar and if so whether a mandamus  

could be issued directing the respondents to announce the  

result currently lying in a sealed cover. The factual backdrop  

in which the question arises may be summarised as under:

3. Apart from nearly one lac posts of teachers in primary  

schools, secondary schools and higher secondary schools run  

by Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils, District Boards  

and Panchayats  as  many as 2596 vacancies  of  Librarians  

were advertised by the Government of Bihar in terms of a  

Notification  dated  29th August,  2008.   The  time  schedule  

2

Page 3

stipulated in the notification required the selection process  

to  be  completed  by  24th December,  2008.  The  selection  

process was to be undertaken by Selection Committees at  

the  district  levels,  although  the  composition  of  such  

Committees and the norms and procedures governing the  

selection  process  were  not  very  clearly  spelt  out  in  the  

notification.  

4. The  appellants  in  these  appeals  also  applied  for  

appointment against posts of Librarians in response to the  

above notification. Their claim for such appointments was,  

however,  turned  down  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  

satisfy  the  conditions  of  eligibility  prescribed  for  such  

appointments as they did not possess a Bachelor’s Degree in  

Library Science from a recognised university. Aggrieved, the  

appellants filed Writ Petition No.17734 of 2009 before the  

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  which  petition  was  

dismissed  by  the  High  Court  holding  that  the  degrees  in  

library science obtained by the appellants through Distance  

Education  were  not  recognised.  The  Distance  Education  

Council had, observed the High Court, in terms of its letter  

3

Page 4

dated  2nd December,  2008  clearly  stated  that  Alagappa  

University from where the appellants had obtained the said  

degrees was not recognised till 24th November, 2009 when  

the said University was granted recognition for the first time.  

The High Court  was also of  the view that  the process  of  

appointment  and  selection  stood  completed  by  January,  

2009, i.e. long before Alagappa University was recognised.  

The  High  Court,  therefore,  saw  no  reason  to  permit  the  

appellants  to  compete  for  appointment  with  other  

candidates. The High Court observed:

“From  the  aforesaid  factual  narration,  the  core  question that emerges for consideration is whether   the  students,  who  have  passed  from  Alagappa  University  through  Distance  Education,  can  be  allowed to participate in the counselling.  There is no   shadow of  doubt  that  the  Alagappa University  did   not have the recognition from the distance Education   Council at the time of examination. It obtained post   facto recognition on 24.11.2009, that is, at a very   belated stage.”

5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court  

on 1st May, 2013, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the appellants argued that the reason given by  

the  High  Court  for  refusing  relief  to  the  appellants  was  

unsustainable.  He submitted  that  the process  of  selection  

4

Page 5

had not been completed in January,  2009 as held by the  

High  Court,  but  had  continued  till  January,  2012.  He  

contended that so long as the process of selection was on,  

the appellants’ claim for consideration against the vacancies  

notified by the Government, could not be ignored or rejected  

by the State.  Reliance  in  support  of  that  submission  was  

placed by Mr.  Patwalia  on certain  documents filed by the  

appellants  to  show  that  the  selection  process  had  not  

concluded in January 2009 as observed by the High Court  

but continued till as late as the year 2012. After hearing the  

matter at some length we had by our order dated 1st May,  

2013 directed the State Government to file an appropriate  

affidavit answering the following queries:

“(1) What  is  the  total  number  of  appointments   made in each District/unit so far, whether by  the  State  or  by  the  concerned  authorities,   against the posts of librarian.

(2) How  many  of  such  appointments  had  been  made up to 24th December, 2008, the last date  fixed for completing the process of selections,   in terms of the advertisement notice.

(3) Under  whose  Orders  was  the  date  for   completion of the selection process extended   beyond 24th December, 2008 and in exercise of   what  authority.  Copies  of  the  order  under   which the date for completion of the selection  

5

Page 6

process was extended shall be filed along with   affidavit.

(4)   When  was  the  last  counselling/verification  of   documents of the candidates, who applied for   appointment in each district, conducted.

(5) What were the norms and procedure adopted  by  the  concerned  Selection  Committees  for   evaluating  the  inter  se  merits  of  the  candidates.

(6) In  the  case of  candidates  who had  qualified   from different  universities  within and outside   Bihar,  how  was  the  performance  of  the  candidates adjudged having regard to the fact   that the academic standard for each university   may have been different.

(7) What  was  the  composition  of  the  Selection   Committee  entrusted  with  the  process  of   selection of the candidates.

(8) How  many  candidates  were  enlisted  for   appointment  in  each  district  on  the  basis  of   inter se  merits of such candidates. A copy of   the merit list for each such district be placed   on record.

(9) Does the Government of Bihar have any norms  or guidelines on the subject of recognition of   academic  qualifications  awarded  by  universities  within  Bihar  and  those  outside   Bihar?

(10)  In case the State of Bihar does not have any  mechanism  for  recognition  of  such  qualifications  awarded  to  candidates  from  different  universities,  is  there  any  direction,   administrative or otherwise, that relies upon or   accepts  the  recognition  granted  to  such  universities  by  Distance  Education  Council,   New Delhi.

(11)  Apart from Alagappa University from where the   petitioners  claim  to  have  obtained  their   degree/qualification  in  library  science,  were   

6

Page 7

any  other  candidates  from other  universities   not  recognised  on  the  date  of  the  said   Notification considered for appointment by the   concerned  Selection  Committees.  If  so,  on  what basis. In case there was any provisional   recognition to such universities, the copies of   such provisional recognition orders be placed   on record.

(12)  Is the process of selection incomplete in any   district  as  on  date  and  if  so  what  are  the   number of vacancies that remain to be filled in   such districts.

(13) Does the State propose to close or finalise the   process of selection against the vacancies that   were advertised in the year 2008. If so does it   propose  to  issue  a  fresh  notification  inviting   applications  against  the  vacancies  remaining   unfilled having regard to the fact that a large   number of candidates who were not eligible as   on the date of the said Notification may have   become  eligible  for  consideration  of   appointment.

(14) Is there a library in each school where the post   has been filled up or is sought to be filled up.   If there is no library in existence has the State   taken  any  steps  and  if  not  does  the  State   propose to take steps to provide a library to   the school concerned. If the answer be in the   affirmative  the  timeframe  within  which  it   proposes to do so may be indicated.”

6. The respondents have pursuant to the above filed an  

affidavit  answering  the  queries.  Although  some  of  the  

answers  provided  in  the  affidavit  are  not  entirely  

satisfactory,   we do not consider  it  necessary to look for  

further information in that regard as any such attempt  is  

7

Page 8

bound to unnecessarily delay the disposal of these appeals  

further.

7. The selection process, it is common ground, was to be  

conducted in terms of the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and  

Higher  Secondary  Teachers  (Appointment  and  Service  

Conditions),  Rules,  2006 as  amended  by  the  amendment  

Rules  of  2008.   Rule  4(vii)  (a)  and  (b)  of  said  Rules  as  

amended stipulates the following conditions of eligibility for  

appointment as a Librarian.  

“4(vii) (a) Possesses Degree of Graduation with minimum  45  percent  marks  from  any  recognized   university. For the scheduled castes/scheduled   tribes/extremely  backward  class/backward  class and disabled, (irelaxation of five percent   would  be  made  available  in  the  minimum  desired marks.

(b) Degree of Graduation in Library Science given   by  any  university  recognised  by  the  Department of Education, State Government.”  

8. Scrutiny of the applications received by the competent  

authorities appears to have revealed that several candidates  

had  applied  for  appointment  on  the  basis  of  degrees  in  

library  science  obtained  by  Distance  Education  mode.  

Taking  note  of  such  candidatures,  Secretary,  Human  

8

Page 9

Resources Development of the Government of Bihar notified  

that  the  degrees  awarded  by  any  university  under  the  

distance learning mode will be recognised only if the same  

are  recognized  and  approved  by  the  Distance  Education  

Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University. Since the  

Distance Education Council had declined recognition to the  

degrees  awarded  by  Algappa  University  the  petitioners  

apprehended  that  they  may  not  be  considered  for  

appointment  against  the  available  vacancies.  CWJC  

No.18561 which was the first round of litigation between the  

parties was, therefore, filed by the petitioners and several  

others  in  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  for  a  

mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for  

appointment as librarian pursuant to the advertisement in  

question.  

9. The respondents contested the petition aforementioned  

and asserted that academic qualifications awarded through  

distance education from any university established under the  

Act  of  the  Parliament  or  institutions  are  deemed  to  be  

universities  under  Section  3  of  the  University  Grants  

9

Page 10

Commission Act, 1956 or institutions of National importance  

declared to be so under an Act of the Parliament shall stand  

automatically recognised for the purposes of employment to  

posts and services under the Central Government provided  

such  qualifications  and universities  are  recognised  by  the  

Distance Education Council. It was further submitted that a  

notification  was  issued  even  by  the  Distance  Education  

Council  informing  all  concerned  that  Distance  Education  

Council  constituted  under  the  Indira  Gandhi  national  

University  Act,  1985  determines  standards  for  distance  

education in the country and prescribes guidelines that are  

mandatory for all institutions and that institutions ought to  

obtain  approval  of  the  Distance  Education  Council  before  

commencing  any  degree/diploma  or  any  such  course  

through  distance  education  mode.  The notification  further  

informed the public at large that universities and institutions  

which  offered  a  degree/diploma  course  through  distance  

mode was misleading the public if they purported to claim  

that such degrees/diplomas or courses are recognised by the  

University Grants Commission. Such degrees could in terms  

of the notification be recognised only if the institutions had  

10

Page 11

obtained approval of Distance Education Council under the  

Indira  Gandhi  National  Open  University  Act,  1985.  That  

requirement was according to the respondents not satisfied  

in the present case as the Distance Education Council had in  

terms of its letter dated 1st December, 2008 clearly stated  

that the B.L.I.S. Degree of Algappa University by distance  

education  mode  was  not  recognised  by  the  Distance  

Education Council.   

10. A Single Bench of the High Court of Patna before whom  

CWJC No.18561 came up for consideration held that since a  

degree in library science from a recognised university was  

the  bare  minimum  requirement  for  appointment  as  a  

Librarian and since the degree obtained by the petitioners  

before  it  was  not  recognised  by  the  Distance  Education  

Council, the petitioners were not eligible for consideration or  

appointment against the available vacancies on the basis of  

any  such  qualification.  The  writ  petition  filed  by  the  

petitioners was, accordingly, dismissed.                             

11. Shortly after the dismissal of the above petition came  

another petition filed by Pramod Kumar and others  (CWJA  

11

Page 12

No.3995 of 2009 ; Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. The State of   

Bihar & Ors.) in which a Single Bench of the High Court of  

Patna  passed  an  order  on  1st April,  2009  directing  the  

Distance Education Council to dispose of at an early date the  

prayer made by Algappa University for recognition.  In CWJC  

No.6235 of  2009 filed  by Prem Sudha Kumar  and others  

another Single Bench of the High Court of Patna by an order  

dated 18th May, 2009 directed the State not to make any  

appointments based on a degree in distance education mode  

not recognised by the Distance Education Council.  

12. The above writ  petitions  were  then followed  by  Writ  

Petition No.17734 of 2009 from which the present appeals  

arise  in  which  the  petitioners  not  only  challenged  the  

constitutional validity of Rule 4 (vii)(a) & (b) of the Bihar  

Municipality  Secondary  and  Higher  Secondary  Teachers  

(Appointment  and  Service  Condition)  Rules,  2006  as  

amended in 2008 but also prayed for a direction against the  

respondents for consideration of their cases for appointment  

against the post of Librarian on the basis of  their  degree  

qualification  from  Algappa  University,  Karaikuddi,  Tamil  

12

Page 13

Nadu.  The  petitioners’  case  primarily  was  that  the  Indira  

Gandhi National Open University had by an order dated 24th  

November,  2009 granted  ex post  facto recognition  to the  

programme  offered  by  distance  education  mode  by  the  

Algappa University with effect from 1995 which implied that  

the  degrees  awarded  to  the  petitioners  were  recognised  

qualifications  making  them  eligible  for  appointment  as  

Librarians.  Challenge  to  the  validity  of  the  Rules  was,  

however, given up by the petitioner before the High Court as  

is evident from its order dated 7th January, 2010. The limited  

question that fell  for  consideration before the High Court,  

therefore,  was  whether  the  degrees  obtained  by  the  

petitioners from the Algappa University were recognised and  

whether the petitioners could be considered for appointment  

against  the  available  vacancies  on  the  basis  of  the  said  

qualifications. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on  

the  ground  that  Algappa  University  did  not  have  the  

requisite recognition from Distance Education Council “at the  

time  of  examination”  and  that  post  facto  recognition  

belatedly granted on 24th February, 2009 did not entitle the  

petitioners to the consideration or appointments prayed for.  

13

Page 14

13. The short question that falls for our determination in  

the  above  backdrop,  therefore,  is  whether  the  academic  

qualification acquired by the petitioners is recognized for the  

purposes of appointment as Librarians against the vacancies  

in  question,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  Distance  

Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University  

has granted ex post facto recognition to Algappa University  

from where the petitioners  have secured their  degrees  in  

library science. The High Court has, as noticed above, taken  

the view that recognition by Distance Education Council was  

granted belatedly inasmuch as such recognition had come  

after  the conclusion of  the entire  selection  process hence  

was of no avail to the petitioners. There can indeed be no  

quarrel  with  the  abstract  proposition  of  law  that  any  

recognition  granted  after  the  conclusion  of  the  selection  

process cannot possibly help the candidates concerned who  

ought to satisfy the conditions of eligibility according to the  

relevant Rules on the date the applications are submitted  

and scrutinised to determine their eligibility.  The difficulty,  

however, is that the relevant Rules, did not in the case at  

hand stipulate whether a degree in library science obtained  

14

Page 15

by  Distance  Education  mode  will  constitute  a  recognised  

qualification.  All that Rule 4 (vii) (b) stipulated was that the  

candidates  should  have  a  degree  in  library  science  

recognised by the Department of Education. The Department  

of Education has not by itself recognised any university or  

academic  qualification  awarded  whether  by  regular  or  

Distance Education mode. It was only when candidates who  

had  secured  degrees  in  Library  Science  by  Distance  

Education  mode  applied  for  appointment  that  the  

Government issued a clarification that such degrees will be  

recognised provided the University awarding the same has  

been recognised by the Distance Education Council.  There  

was in other words considerable confusion as to what would  

constitute  a  recognised  qualification  for  purposes  of  

appointment as Librarians.  Such being the case, the normal  

rule that candidates must satisfy the conditions of eligibility  

on  the  date  of  the  applications  will  have  to  be  applied  

liberally  so  as  to  prevent  injustice  to  candidates  who  

possessed  the  requisite  degree  qualification  but  such  

qualification  required  recognition  by  another  statutory  

authority which came during the selection process but was  

15

Page 16

effective  from a  date  earlier  than  the  date  on  which  the  

applications were made.  The fact that the candidates were  

in  the  meantime  allowed  to  participate  in  the  selection  

process under Orders of the Court and their result kept in a  

sealed cover makes it so much easier for the Court to apply  

the relaxed standard for determination of the conditions of  

eligibility  especially  when  the  consideration  of  such  

candidates  will  in  no  way  prejudice  any  other  candidate  

already appointed or selected for appointment.  

14. We may now examine whether  the selection  process  

had  indeed  been  concluded  before  the  recognition  was  

granted  by  the  Distance  Education  Council  in  the  instant  

case.  The version of the petitioners consistently has been  

that the selection process was not concluded as on the date  

the recognition order was passed by the Distance Education  

Council and even three years thereafter till the year 2012.  

Whether or not that was so, is what we intended to discover  

from the answers provided by respondents to the queries  

extracted in the earlier part of this order. In answer to query  

no.2 the respondents have on the affidavit of Secretary to  

16

Page 17

Government, Education Department, Government of Bihar,  

stated  that  no  appointments  could  be  made  till  24th  

December,  2008  the  last  date  fixed  for  completing  the  

process of selection in terms of the advertisement notice. In  

answer  to  query  no.3  the  respondents  have  stated  that  

appointment orders issued against the vacancies of Teachers  

and  Librarians  were  not  issued  on  account  of  certain  

allegations that forged and fabricated documents were being  

used to secure such appointments and also on account of  

instructions  issued  by  the  Government  to  the  effect  that  

degrees  obtained  by  some  of  the  candidates  from  

universities like Hindi Vidyapeeth Deogarh were being used  

for  claiming appointments.  The  affidavit  goes  on  to  state  

that in terms of instructions issued by the Government on  

17th February, 2010 a fresh schedule for issuing appointment  

letters  was  published  stipulating  different  dates  for  

completion  of  the  process  by  the  Nagar  Nigams,  Nagar  

Prashids, Nagar Panchayats and Zila Parishads between 25th  

February, 2010 to 8th March, 2010.  Since the process could  

not be completed yet another schedule was published for all  

the  four  local  bodies  mentioned  above  asking  them  to  

17

Page 18

conclude the selection process on different  dates between  

10th May, 2010 to 20th May, 2010.  Yet another schedule was  

notified for completion of the selection process by the State  

Government’s letter dated 11th June, 2010 asking the local  

bodies  concerned  to  complete  the  selection  process  on  

different  dates between 5th July,  2010 to 15th July,  2010.  

That  was  not  however,  the  end  of  the  matter  as  the  

selection and appointment process could not be completed  

by  the  local  bodies  which  led  to  the  publication  of  yet  

another  schedule  stipulating  dates  for  completion  of  the  

selection process between 10th August, 2010 to 13th August,  

2010.  As if that was also not enough, the entire selection  

process was in terms of a fresh schedule to be completed on  

different  dates  between  8th July,  2011  to  12th July,  2011  

followed  by  yet  another  schedule  stipulated  by  the  

Government in terms of its letter dated 18th October, 2011  

that  required the local  bodies  to complete  the process  of  

selection  of  appointments  on different  dates  between 14th  

December, 2011 to 17th December, 2011.  The process of  

re-scheduling the selection  and appointments  did  not  end  

there  for  by  another  letter  dated  4th January,  2012  the  

18

Page 19

Government  re-scheduled  the  selection  and  appointment  

process to be completed between 23rd January, 2012 and 2nd  

February,  2012.   The  affidavit  states  that  no  satisfactory  

progress  in  the  selection  of  the  Librarians  was  made  in  

certain districts despite re-scheduling orders passed by the  

Government with the result a final schedule for completion  

of  the  selection  process  was  published  asking  the  local  

bodies to complete the selection and appointment process  

on  different  dates  between  15th June,  2012 to  25th June,  

2012.  In answer to query no.4 the Government have stated  

that the last counselling/verification of the documents of the  

selected candidates was undertaken pursuant to the above  

final schedule.

15. We are anguished by the very thought of the selection  

procedure dragging on for  as long as four years between  

2008  and  2012.   Such  inordinate  delay  and  indolence  is  

totally  undesirable  not  only  because  it  violates  the  

fundamental  rights  of  candidates  who  have  qualified  for  

appointment during the intervening period but also because  

it depicts a complete failure on the part of all concerned in  

19

Page 20

regulating  the  selection  and  appointment  process  with  a  

view  to  ensuring  that  the  same  is  fair,  objective  and  

transparent.  We cannot help saying that several questions  

have bothered us in regard to the selection process itself  

which  leaves  much  to  be  desired  but  since  there  is  no  

challenge  to  the  selection  or  the  appointments  made  

pursuant thereto, we refrain from making any observation in  

regard to those aspects.  All that we need say is that the  

selection  and  appointment  of  such  a  large  number  of  

employees  under  the  local  bodies  ought  to  have  been  

conducted in a more orderly fashion and more importantly  

the same should have been completed within the time frame  

stipulated  for  the  purpose  or  such  reasonable  extension  

thereof  as  may  have  become  absolutely  inevitable.  A  

selection  process  that  lingers  on  for  years  can  hardly  

measure  up  to  the  demands  of  objectivity,  fairness  and  

transparency especially when the method by which inter se  

merit of candidates was determined is neither stipulated in  

the  Rules  nor  any  guidelines  issued  for  the  Selection  

Committee to follow have been placed before us.  Be that as  

it may, the question is whether the selection process stood  

20

Page 21

completed before the Distance Education Council recognised  

Algappa University from where the petitioners have obtained  

their degrees.  Our answer is clearly in the negative.  On  

their own showing, the respondents had not concluded the  

selection process till as late as middle of 2012 i.e. more than  

two years  after  the  recognition  order  was  passed  by  the  

Distance Education Council in favour of Algappa University.  

Petitioners had, in the meantime, been allowed to participate  

in the interviews under the orders of this Court passed on  

10th May, 2010.  By our order dated 14th March, 2011 we  

had  directed  the  respondents  not  to  fill  up  54  posts  of  

Librarians  relevant  to  petitioners  in  SLP  Nos.10964  and  

12527 of 2010 and SLP (C) No.17421 of 2010 and two posts  

to be kept vacant relevant to SLP (C) Nos. 23850 and 23852  

of  2010.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  petitioners  have  

participated  in  the  interview  under  the  above  orders  and  

that requisite number of vacancies have also been reserved  

for their appointment in the event of their succeeding in the  

present case. It is also not in dispute that the result of the  

petitioners  has  been  kept  in  sealed  cover  awaiting  the  

ultimate  outcome  of  the  present  appeals.  In  the  

21

Page 22

circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that  

the  validity  of  the  post  facto  recognition  granted  by  the  

Distance  Education  Council  to  Algappa  University  has  not  

been assailed before us nor was the same under challenge  

before the High Court, we see no reason why the petitioners  

in these petitions should not be allowed the benefit of such  

recognition  which  implies  that  they  shall  be  treated  as  

eligible  for  consideration  and  appointment  against  the  

available vacancies depending upon their inter se merit vis-

a-vis other candidates competing for the same.

16. In  the  result  we  allow  these  appeals,  set  aside  the  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  and  allow  Writ  Petition  

17734  of  2000  with  a  direction  to  the  respondents  to  

consider  the  appellants  for  appointment  against  the  

available  vacancies  by  treating  them  eligible  for  such  

appointment.  Depending upon their inter se merit vis-a-vis  

other  candidates  who  may  be  competing  for  the  unfilled  

vacancies if  any out  of  those advertised,  the respondents  

shall  issue  the  appointment  orders  to  them  if  they  are  

otherwise found to be fit and suitable for such appointment.  

22

Page 23

The needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously  

but not later than two months from the date of this order.

17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.       

……………………………………….……….…..…J.        (T.S. THAKUR)

     …………………………..…………………..…..…J.         (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

New Delhi April 1, 2014

23