Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 983 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2016-07-28

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Constitution of a three member committee earlier by the university was a fall out of a judicial order and direction passed by a learned Single Judge, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ application. After the three member committee went into the matter extensively and submitted a report even without looking into the report or the reason for rejecting the report, a five member committee has been constituted contained in Annexure-1, dated 12.01.2013. 2. It is this order contained in Annexure-1, dated 12.01.2013, which is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that there was no occasion to issue the notification contained in Annexure-1 because the notification does not indicate any reason why the three member committee report was rejected outright and the reason for constitution of a five member committee was necessitated. If any decision is taken within the public domain, that too in the capacity of holder of a public post, the decision has to satisfy the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. From perusal of the materials, it is evident that certain people at the helms of affairs of the college did not feel happy and comfortable enough with the findings which had emerged in the three member committee report. Some of them, therefore, were influential enough to approach the Vice-Chancellor of the university to overcome the embarrassment of those findings and in haste Annexure-1 came to be issued. 5. Despite affidavit having been filed on behalf of the university, the mystery behind issuance of Annexure-1 and the necessity for doing so in a hurry does not satisfactorily emerge. 6. Even otherwise when a decision is taken within the public domain, the decision must speak for itself and should be capable enough to stand any rational scrutiny of the decision so taken. It cannot be a case that somebody is vested with the power and, therefore, it can be exercised in any manner whatsoever. Power must be exercised with rationality and objectivity. 7. In totality, therefore, the Court feels that the decision of the university contained in Annexure-1 was uncalled for and unjustified. Annexure-1, therefore, is quashed. 8. Writ application is allowed.