Appointments cannot be rejected on unsubstantiated allegations without cogent evidence and hearing affected candidates.

The petitioners were selected for various sanctioned posts at Madarsa Baitul Uloom, including Fazil, Hafiz, Moulvi, Alim, trained-teacher, clerk and peon posts.

The Managing Committee, approved by the Jharkhand Academic Council (“JAC”), obtained permission to fill the vacancies and issued an advertisement.

The selection process, including the written examination and interview, was conducted under the supervision of JAC-nominated experts and in the presence of government officials.

Eleven petitioners were selected and issued appointment letters, after which they claimed to have joined and discharged their duties.

Approval of their appointments was sought from the JAC, principally because salary could not be released without such approval.

Following complaints regarding the constitution of the Managing Committee, alleged favouritism, donor membership, and irregularities in the selection process, reports were submitted by the District Education Officer (“DEO”) and the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”).

The JAC thereafter rejected approval of the appointments by order dated 28 October 2023 and directed that fresh appointments be made.

The petitioners challenged that order.

Whether the JAC’s order dated 28 October 2023 rejecting approval of the petitioners’ appointments was vitiated by perversity and non-application of mind?

Whether the enquiry reports furnished sufficient cogent material to conclude that the selection process was unfair, biased, or lacking in transparency?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to reconsideration of approval of their appointments after consideration of the expert reports, tabulation sheets, and other selection records?

The Court applied the principles of administrative fairness, non-arbitrariness, application of mind, and natural justice.

An administrative authority rejecting an appointment or selection process must rely on cogent and substantiated material; conclusions that a process was biased or non-transparent cannot be based merely on surmises, conjectures, or unsubstantiated complaints.

The Court further applied the principle that an adverse decision affecting the legitimate expectations and interests of selected candidates must be supported by clear reasons and must be reached after fair consideration of the relevant material; affected parties should not be condemned without an opportunity of being heard.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the selection process had been conducted under the supervision of JAC-nominated experts and in the presence of government officials.

The Secretary and In-charge Moulvi had recused themselves because their relatives participated in the selection, reducing the force of the allegation of direct institutional favouritism.

The DEO’s report dated 12 March 2023 found the principal complainant’s allegations to be baseless, while the later DEO report dated 3 April 2023 recorded that no evidence had been produced to establish favouritism.

That report merely suggested staying approval on the basis of the student-teacher ratio and did not recommend cancellation of the selection process.

The SDO’s report primarily addressed the donor-member issue and other allegations against the Managing Committee but did not demonstrate how the selection process itself was unfair or tainted.

Accordingly, the JAC’s conclusion that the appointments lacked transparency was unsupported by substantive material.

The JAC relied on inconclusive enquiry reports, failed to properly assess the expert reports and selection records, and did not provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before rejecting their appointments.

The impugned decision was therefore held to suffer from non-application of mind and procedural unfairness.

The Secretary, JAC was directed to reconsider approval of the appointments within 12 weeks of receiving the Court’s order, after examining the reports of the nominated experts, the tabulation sheets, and other relevant selection materials.

If the appointments were found to be lawful, the JAC was directed to issue approval within a further four weeks.

The writ petition and pending interlocutory application were accordingly disposed of.