Patna HC Sets Aside Minority Commission Member’s Unauthorized Order Directing BPSC To Recommend Assistant Professor Candidate

In brief

The question

1. Whether the order dated 30 December 2013 was valid when issued by a Commission member without authority to act for the Commission.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 30 December 2013 and allowed the writ petition.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 26 of 1999 for Assistant Professor (Physics) posts.

Respondent No. 3 was unsuccessful in the selection and later pursued remedies concerning a vacancy, including CWJC No. 8411 of 2007; the High Court directed him to make a representation to the State Government, which was rejected.

¶ 6–10, 15

He also filed CWJC No. 11749 of 2013 challenging that rejection, which was pending when the present matter was considered.

¶ 6–10, 15

Respondent No. 3 subsequently complained to the Bihar State Minorities Commission.

¶ 11–12

A Commission member issued an order dated 30 December 2013 directing the BPSC to decide his case and recommend him for appointment.

¶ 11–12

The BPSC sought to quash that order.

In its counter-affidavit, the Commission stated that the member had acted in his individual capacity, without the Commission’s or Chairman’s consent, and that it did not support the order.

¶ 15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the order dated 30 December 2013 was valid when issued by a Commission member without authority to act for the Commission.

¶ 15–16

ii.2. Whether the Commission could investigate or issue directions on a matter that was pending before a court.

¶ 16

03Law Applied

The Court referred to the Bihar State Minorities Commission Act, 1991, including Section 8, which it stated bars the Commission from investigating a matter pending before a court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body.

¶ 16

It also accepted the Commission’s position that a member had no authority to issue the impugned direction either personally in that capacity or on behalf of the Commission without proper authorization.

¶ 15–16

Although the parties referred to other provisions of the Act, no precedent was cited or relied upon in the Court’s decision.

¶ 11, 14–16

Provisions in the judgment · 3

Bihar State Minorities Commission Act, 1991 Section 6Section 5Section 8

04Reasoning

The Court relied on the Commission’s counter-affidavit, which disavowed the impugned order and stated that it had been issued by the member in his individual capacity, without the Chairman’s consent or the Commission’s endorsement.

¶ 15–16

The Court further noted that the member lacked authority to issue such a direction and that the underlying matter was already pending before the High Court in CWJC No. 11749 of 2013, bringing the Commission’s intervention within the prohibition described under Section 8.

¶ 15–16

It therefore found the order unsustainable.