A duly countersigned experience certificate cannot be rejected solely for lacking a memo number and date.

The Bihar State University Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 15/20-21 dated 21 September 2020 for appointment of Assistant Professors, including 135 posts in Philosophy, with 11 posts reserved for the BC category.

The petitioner, a BC-category candidate, applied for the post and submitted his academic records, five research publications, and teaching-experience certificates.

The Commission awarded the petitioner 71 marks under the system-generated academic score and 3.6 marks under the manual score—1.6 marks for teaching experience and 2 marks for research publications—giving him 74.6 marks. Since the BC-category cut-off for interview was 76 marks, he was initially not called for interview.

During the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to interim orders, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview and obtained 12 marks. The Commission subsequently published the result, but the petitioner was not selected because his total score was 86.6 marks, whereas the final BC-category cut-off was 88 marks.

The petitioner contended that he was entitled to additional marks for five years’ teaching experience at H.S. College, Haveli, Kharagpur, and for additional research publications. The Commission denied marks for the H.S. College experience certificate because it did not bear a memo/letter number and date.

During the proceedings, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University verified the certificate through the concerned Principal, who confirmed that it had been issued by the College and was genuine.

Whether the Commission was justified in awarding zero marks for the petitioner’s teaching experience at H.S. College, Haveli, Kharagpur, merely because the experience certificate did not contain a memo/letter number and date, despite being signed by the Principal and counter-signed by the University Registrar?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recalculation of his marks and consequential appointment if, after adding the appropriate teaching-experience marks, his score exceeded the final BC-category cut-off of 88 marks?

Whether the Court could interfere with the Commission’s assessment of research publications and teaching experience by its subject experts?

The Court applied Clause 7.2 of the recruitment advertisement, under which teaching experience was to carry two marks for each completed year, up to ten marks, with proportionate marks for a shorter period, on the basis of a certificate counter-signed by the Registrar of the concerned University.

The Court further applied the settled principle that courts should ordinarily defer to the assessment of duly constituted academic or expert bodies and should not sit as appellate authorities over their evaluation, as stated in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, 2010 (8) SCC 372, Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, 2018 (15) SCC 796, Sajeesh Babu K. v. N.K. Santhosh, 2012 (12) SCC 106, and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, 1990 (1) SCC 305.

However, the Court held that the Commission could not reject a duly authenticated experience certificate on an additional technical requirement—memo/letter number and date—not prescribed in the advertisement; where doubt existed, the Commission was required to verify the certificate before awarding zero marks.

The Court distinguished between impermissible judicial re-evaluation of expert opinion and correction of an administrative decision contrary to the governing advertisement.

Although the assessment of research publications and the qualitative evaluation undertaken by subject experts ordinarily warranted judicial restraint, the Commission’s refusal to award any marks for the H.S. College experience was based solely on the absence of a memo/letter number and date.

Clause 7.2 required the experience certificate to be counter-signed by the Registrar; it did not prescribe the additional formal requirement relied upon by the Commission.

The certificate had in fact been counter-signed and was subsequently verified by the concerned Principal and the University.

Accordingly, the Commission acted inconsistently with its own advertisement by unilaterally awarding zero marks instead of verifying the certificate and assessing the qualifying period of teaching experience.

The Court therefore directed recalculation, while leaving the consequential question of selection dependent on whether the recalculated score exceeded 88 marks.

The Commission was directed to recalculate the petitioner’s marks by considering his teaching experience at H.S. College, Haveli, Kharagpur, from 23 September 2013 to 6 December 2017, and to publish his revised result.

If the revised score exceeded the final BC-category cut-off of 88 marks, the Commission was directed to issue an appointment letter against the reserved post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy.

The petitioner would receive seniority and other service-related benefits from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed, but no salary for the period during which he had not worked.

Pending applications were also disposed of.