NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

                      [2014] 5 S.C.R. 27


                 NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS.                                A
                               v.
                  STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2014)
                        APRIL 1, 2014
                                                                     B
       [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

      Service Law - Appointment - Against the post of school
librarian - Writ petitions filed by appellants for consideration
of their cases for appointment on basis of degree qualification      C
obtained by them from Algappa University by Distance
Education mode - Dismissed by High Court on the ground
that Algappa University did not have requisite recognition
from the Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi
National Open University "at the time of examination" and            D
post facto recognition belatedly granted did not entitle the
appellants to the consideration or appointments prayed for -
Held: The relevant Rules did not stipulate whether a degree
in library science obtained by Distance Education mode
constituted a recognised qualification - It was only when            E
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 - Such             F
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 - Moreso, when selection process
was not completed before the Distance Education Council
recognised Algappa University - Since the candidates were            G
in the meantime allowed to participate in the selection process
under orders of the Court and their result kept in a sealed
cover, relaxed standard for determination of the conditions of
eligibility should be made applicable especially when
                               27                                    H
    28       SUPREME COURT REPOR~S                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   consideration of such candidates will in no way prejudice any
    other candidate already appointed or selected for appointment
    - In the circumstances, and since validity of post facto
    recogndion granted by the Distance Education Council to
    Algappa University was not assailed before the Court,
B   appellants should be allowed the benefit of such recognition
    - They should be treated as eligible for consideration and
    appointment against the available vacancies - Bihar
    Municipality Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers
    (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 as
c   amended in 2008 - r.4(vii)(a) & (b).

          Service Law - Selection - Selection process dragging on
    for years - Held: Such inordinate delay and indolence is totally
    undesirable not only because it violates the fundamental
    rights of candidates who have qualified for appointment during
D   the intervening period but also because it depicts a complete
    failure on the part of all concerned in regulating the selection
    and appointment process with a view to ensuring that the same
    is fair, objective and transparent.

E        Dispute arose as to whether the appellants were
    eligible for appointment as librarians in the schools run
    by the local bodies in the State of Bihar.

       The appellants filed writ petitions praying for a
  direction against the respondents for consideration of
F their cases for appointment against the post of Librarian
  on the basis of the degree qualification obtained by tr2m
  from Algappa University, Karaikuddi, Tamil Nadu by
  Distance Education mode. The case of the appellants was
  that the Indira Gandhi National Open University had in the
G year 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 appellants were
  recognised qualifications making them eligible for
H
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &               29
                  ORS.
appointment as Librarians.                                    A

    The High Court however dismissed the writ petitions
on the ground that Algappa University did not have the
requisite recognition from the .Distance Education
Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University "at the 8
time of examination" and that post facto recognition
belatedly granted in 2009 did not entitle the appellants to
the consideration or appointments prayed for. The High
Court took the view that recognition by the Distance
Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open C
University was granted belatedly inasmuch as such
recognition had come after conclusion of the entire
selection process and hence was of no avail to the
appellants.

    The question which therefore arose for consideration D
was whether the academic qualification acquired by the
appellants was 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 E
University granted ex post facto recognition to Algappa
University from where the appellants secured their
degrees in library science.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                              F
      H.ELD: 1. Any recognition grante.d aher 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 G
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 by Distance
Education mode will constitute a recognised qualification.
All that Rule 4 (vii) (b) of the Bihar Municipality Secondal)' H
    30      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A and Higher Secondary Teachers (Appointment and
  Service Condition) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2008
  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
B 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
c 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
0 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
E qualification but such qualification required recognition
   by another statutory authority which came during the
  selection process but was 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
F Court and their result kept in a sealed cover makes it so
   mu~h 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
G selected for appointment. [Para 13) [41-D-H; 42-A-C]
      2. In the instant case, the selection procedure
  dragged on for as long as four years between 2008 and
  2012. Such inordinate delay and indolence is totally
H undesirable not only because it violates the fundamental
 NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &               31
                 ORS.
 rights of candidates who have qualified for appointment A
during the intervening period but also because it depicts
a complete failure on the part of all concerned in
 regulating the selection and appointment process with a
view to ensuring that the same is fair, objective and
transparent. A selection process that lingers on for years s
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 c
before us. Be that as it may, the question is whether the
selection process stood completed before the Distance
Education Council recognised Algappa University from
where the appellants have obtained their degrees. The
answer is clearly in the negative. On their own showing,
                                                              0
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
Universi~y. The appellants had, in the meantime, been
allowed to participate .in the interviews under the orders E
of this Court passed on 10th May, 2010. By order dated
14th March, 2011 this Court 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.17 421 of 2010 and two posts to be kept vacant relevant F
to SLP (C) Nos. 23850 and 23852 of 2.010. The appellants
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. Also, the result of the · G
appellants has been kept in sealed cover awaiting the
ultimate outcome of the present appeals. In the
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 H
    32      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A has not been assailed before this Court nor was the same
  under challenge before the High Court, there is no reason
  why the appellants should not be allowed the benefit of
  such recognition which implies that they shall be treated
  as eligible for consideration and appointment against ttie
B available vacancies depending upon their inter se merit
  vis-a-vis other candidates competing for the same. [Para
  15] [44-B-H; 45-A-E]

      3. Direction is given to the respondents to consider
C 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
0 otherwise found to be fit and suitable for such
  appointment. The needful shall be done by the
  respondents expeditiously but not later than two months
  from the date of this order. [Para 16] [45-F-G]

E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4270 of 2014.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2010 of the
    High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 17734 of 2009.
F                               WITH
    Civil Appeal Nos. 4271, 4272, 4273, 4274 and 4275 of 2014.

       P.S. Patwalia, Nagendra Rai, Pragati Neekhra,
  Suryanarayana Singh, Parth Tiwari, Neeraj Shekhar, Akhilesh
G Kumar Pandey, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar,
  Braj Kishore Mishra, Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Subhro
  Sanyal, Kumar Rajeev, Ebrahim Kabir, Smarhar Singh,
  Shantanu Sagar, Abhishek Kr. Singh, Prerna Singh, T. Mahipal,
  Amit Anand Tiwari, Madhu Saran, Avinash Tripathy, Mohit
H Kumar Shah, Rituraj Choudhary, Braj Kishore Misra, Aparna
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                    33
                  ORS.

Jha, Abhishek Yadav for the appearing parties.                      A

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 10th        B
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    c
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:
                                                                    D
      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 stipulated in the        E
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        F
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,          G
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             H
    34       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 5 S.C.R.


A 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 dated 2nd December, 2008
B 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
c 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
D        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
E        Education Council at the time of examination. It obta.ined
         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
F 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 had
  not been completed in January, 2009 as held by the High Court,
G 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.
H Patwalia on certain documents filed by the appellants to show
 NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                     35 t'
           ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
that the selection process had not concluded in January 2009        A
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:
                                                                    B
      "(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             c
            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          D
            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 process was extended
            shall be filed along with affidavit.
                                                                    E
      (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            F
            the concerned Selection Committees for evaluating
            the inter se merits uf 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          G
            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       H
    36         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A               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.
B
         (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?
c
         (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,
D              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/
E             qualification in library science, were 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
F              any provisional recognition to such universities, the
               copies of suer 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
G
                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
H
 NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                    37
           ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
            propose to issue a fresh notification inviting A
            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.                      B

      (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 C
           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 D
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 bound to unnecessarily delay the
disposal of these appeals further.

     7. The selection· process, it is common ground, was to be E
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 F
as a Librarian.

      "4(vii) (a) Possesses Degree of Graduation with
             minimum 45 percent marks from any recognized
             university. For the scheduled castes/scheduled G
             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
                                                                  H
    38       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A               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
B
    science obtained by Distance Education mode. Taking note of
    such candidatures, Secretary, Human 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
c   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
D   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 appoi['ltment as librarian
    pursuant to the advertisement in question.
E
          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
F
    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
G   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
H
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS.             v.
                           STATE OF BIHAR &                     . 39
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 country and prescribes guidelines that are mandatory for all          A
 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          B
 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 obtained approval of Distance Education          c
 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.l.S. Degree of Algappa University by              D
 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 ~ecognised university       E
·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          F
  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                G
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
                                                                       H
    40       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
        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
C Municipality Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers
  (Appointment and SeNice 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 Nadu. The petitioners'
D 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
E 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,
F therefore, was whether the degrees obtained by the petitioners
  from the Algappa University were recognised and whether the
  petitio.ners 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
G 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.
H
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                       41
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

      13. The short question that falls for our determination in        A
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             B
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               c
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            D
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 by Distance Education mode will constitute
a recognised qualification. All that Rule 4 (vii) (b} stipulated was    E
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 pistance
Education mgde,. .+t-wa-s:.only when candidates who had                 F
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                    G
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         H
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   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 effective from a date earlier than the date on
    which the applications were made. The fact that the candidates
B   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
c   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
D   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
E   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
    Government, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
    stated that no appointments could be made till 24th December,
F   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 aQd
G   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
H   on to state that in terms of instructions issued by the
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                   43
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

Government on 17th February, 2010 a fresh schedule for issuing      A
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         B
the four local bodies mentioned above asking them to 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      C
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           D
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       E
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     F
letter dated 4th January, 2012 the 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             G
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    H
    44       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   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
8
    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 regulating the selection
    and appointment process with a view to ensuring that the same
C   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
D   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
E   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
F   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 completed before the Distance Education Council
    recognised Algappa University from where the petitioners have
G   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.
H   Petitioners had, in the meantime, been allowed to participate
  NAUSHAD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                     45
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

in the interviews under the orders of this Court passed on 10th      A
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 201 O
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       B
dispute that the ,petitioners have participated in the interview
under the above orders and that requisite number of vacancies
have ;:1lso 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     c
awaiting the ultimate outcome of the present appeals, In the
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 be,en assailed
before us nor was the same under challenge before the High           D
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 a~ eligible for consideratiori
and appointment against the available vacancies depending
upon their inter se merit vis-a-vis other ,candidates competing      E
for the same.                            ,         ,
      16. In the result we allow these appeals, sef aside ·the ·
order passed by tl'le 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 F
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 1to be fit and suitable for such G
appointment. The needful shall be done by the respondents
expeditiously but not later than two months from the date of this
o~er.                                                            ·
     17. The parties are left to bear their own costs ..
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                              Appeals allowed.   H