Dr. Gulab Chand Ram Jaiswal vs The Chancellor of Universities-Cum-the Governor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10001 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010672532026
======================================================
Dr. Gulab Chand Ram Jaiswal Son of Late Sohan Lal Jaiswal @ S.S. Jaiswal,
Resident of P-16, New Medical Enclave, BHU, P.O. and P.S.- Hindu Vishwa
Vidhyalaya, District- Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh). Presently residing at- Flat No.
405, Tridev Annapurna Apartment, Vidyapith Road, P.O.- Mahatma Gandhi
Kashi Vidhyapith, P.S.- Sigra, District- Varanasi- 221002.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chancellor of Universities-Cum-the Governor through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar Lok Bhawan (Raj Bhawan), Patna- 800001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Bihar Lok Bhawan (Raj Bhawan), Patna- 800001.
3. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-36
For the Chancellor : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner, Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the Chancellor, and Mr. Satish Kumar
Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh University,
Arrah, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, and
Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, on 14.06.2025, 16.06.2025, and
29.12.2025, respectively, pursuant to the advertisements dated
27.05.2025 and 01.12.2025 issued by the Governor's Secretariat.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
2/9
The petitioner has approached this Court primarily assailing the
cancellation of the advertisements dated 28.05.2025,
04.12.2025, and 28.05.2025, whereby the recruitment process
initiated for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the
aforesaid universities was brought to an end.
3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the
cancellation of the aforesaid advertisements, without assigning
any reason, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the
principles of natural justice.
4. Assailing the impugned action, learned Advocate
for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the
advertisements, without disclosing any reason, has deprived the
petitioner of his legitimate opportunity to participate in the
selection process. It is contended that such action is arbitrary
and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further sought
a direction to the concerned respondents, particularly respondent
no. 1, namely, the office of the Chancellor, to modify the
subsequent advertisement dated 30.05.2026 and permit him to
participate in the screening test for selection to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in the aforesaid universities, upon acceptance of his
offline application dated 05.06.2026.
5. Referring to the earlier advertisements dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
3/9
27.05.2025 and 01.12.2025, copies whereof have been brought
on record as Annexure-P/1 series, learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that clause 2 thereof prescribed that a
candidate should not have attained the age of 67 years as on the
last date fixed for submission of the application.
6. It is submitted that, in the case of Veer Kunwar
Singh University, Arrah, and Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur
University, Bhagalpur, the last date for submission of
applications was fixed as 18.06.2025 at 6:00 PM. The petitioner,
being within the prescribed age limit on the relevant date,
submitted his applications for the aforesaid posts. Similarly, in
the case of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, the last date for
submission of applications was fixed as 05.06.2026, on which
date the petitioner was also within the prescribed age limit.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that
the subsequent cancellation of all three advertisements, followed
by the issuance of a fresh advertisement by the Governor's
Secretariat, has resulted in the petitioner being rendered
ineligible on account of his having crossed the age of 67 years
in the intervening period. It is further submitted that the
subsequent advertisement dated 30.05.2026 prescribed
30.06.2026 as the cut-off date for submission of applications,
thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to participate

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
4/9
in the selection process despite his eligibility under the earlier
advertisements.
8. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand &
Ors., [Civil Appeal Nos. 13950–13951 of 2024] , learned
Advocate for the petitioner submits that where a fresh
recruitment process is initiated after cancellation of an earlier
advertisement, due consideration ought to be given to
candidates who were eligible under the earlier recruitment
process, including by granting appropriate age relaxation,
wherever legally warranted. In support of the aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 40 and 41
of the said judgment.
9. Per contra, Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the Chancellor, controverts the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the issuance of
the subsequent advertisement has resulted in any legally
enforceable right being infringed. It is contended that the earlier
advertisements were cancelled for unavoidable reasons and that
the authority concerned was not required to disclose the reasons
for such cancellation in the cancellation notice itself. It is further
submitted that the appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor is

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
5/9
for a fixed tenure of three years and is not a regular appointment
to a civil post. The eligibility conditions, including the
maximum age limit of 67 years, are prescribed having regard to
the nature and tenure of the appointment. The subsequent
advertisement dated 30.05.2026 retained the same maximum
age limit. Consequently, according to learned Senior Advocate,
permitting the petitioner to participate in the selection process
despite his having crossed the prescribed age limit would
amount to relaxing the eligibility criteria in his favour without
any demonstrated legal basis.
10. Learned Advocate appearing for the State adopts
the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Chancellor.
11. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the
judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Amrit Yadav (supra) is
distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the present matter
concerns appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor for a fixed
tenure, whereas the aforesaid decision, according to him, arose
in the context of recruitment to regular Class-IV posts. It is,
therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit
of the aforesaid decision as a matter of course.
12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
6/9
materials available on record, this Court finds that the principal
issue arising for consideration is whether the petitioner, merely
by having applied pursuant to the earlier advertisements and
having satisfied the prescribed age criterion on the respective
last dates for submission of applications, can claim an
enforceable right to participate in the selection process initiated
pursuant to the subsequent advertisement, notwithstanding his
having crossed the prescribed maximum age limit in the
meantime.
13. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India, [AIR 1991 SC 1612] , wherein the Constitution
Bench has held that the mere issuance of an advertisement
inviting applications for recruitment does not confer an
indefeasible right of appointment upon a candidate. The State is
not under an absolute legal obligation to fill up every notified
vacancy, unless the applicable recruitment rules provide
otherwise. At the same time, the power of the State or the
competent authority in matters of recruitment cannot be
exercised arbitrarily, and any decision concerning the
recruitment process must satisfy the applicable requirements of
law.
14. The principle emerging from the aforesaid

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
7/9
decision is that an advertisement inviting applications does not,
by itself, confer an indefeasible right upon an applicant to insist
upon the continuation of the recruitment process in the same
form or to claim appointment merely on the basis of having
applied pursuant thereto. The existence of a right to seek judicial
intervention must, therefore, be examined with reference to the
applicable rules, the nature of the decision impugned, and the
material placed on record.
15. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
present case, the petitioner's claim to participate in the
subsequent selection process cannot be determined solely on the
basis that he was eligible under the earlier advertisements. The
relevant consideration is whether the cancellation of the earlier
advertisements and the issuance of the subsequent
advertisement suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, mala
fides, or violation of an applicable statutory provision.
16. The fact that the petitioner was within the
prescribed age limit on the last dates fixed under the earlier
advertisements may constitute a relevant consideration in
examining his grievance. However, the same, by itself, would
not conclusively establish an enforceable right to insist that the
subsequent recruitment process must be conducted by extending
the benefit of the earlier age criterion or by granting age

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
8/9
relaxation.
17. At the same time, the cancellation of an earlier
recruitment process cannot be treated as immune from judicial
scrutiny merely because the competent authority possesses the
power to cancel an advertisement. The exercise of such power
must remain consistent with the constitutional requirement of
non-arbitrariness. The petitioner's grievance, therefore, requires
examination within the aforesaid legal parameters. However, the
petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that the impugned
action of cancellation of earlier advertisement was actuated with
any malice or arbitrariness.
18. So far as the reliance placed upon Amrit Yadav
(supra) is concerned, the applicability of the principles laid
down therein would depend upon the nature of the recruitment
process, the governing statutory provisions, the circumstances
leading to the cancellation of the earlier advertisements, and the
precise relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case.
19. The mere distinction between a regular
appointment and an appointment for a fixed tenure would not,
by itself, be sufficient to exclude the applicability of a
constitutional principle governing fairness in recruitment.
Equally, the petitioner cannot claim automatic entitlement to age
relaxation merely on the ground that he was eligible under an

Patna High Court CWJC No.10001 of 2026 dt.27-10-2026
9/9
earlier advertisement. The claim must be assessed in the light of
the applicable rules and the ratio of the judgments relied upon.
20. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
and having regard to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra) the petitioner's
claim to continue in, or participate in, the subsequent
recruitment process cannot be accepted merely on the basis of
his earlier applications. In the absence of an established legal
entitlement to the reliefs sought, this Court finds no ground to
grant the directions prayed for in the writ petition.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28-10-2026
Transmission Date