Factual Matrix

In the Matter of Rovins Kumar v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University In response to an advertisement that the Registrar of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, issued on the Vice Chancellor of the University’s directives, an application was made to revoke the appointment of the Respondent to the office of Librarian.

In 2005, numerous Class III and IV jobs were created at the Dr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women’s Institute of Technology in Darbhanga. Even the role of librarian was given state government approval for these positions 2015 saw the publication of an advertisement soliciting candidates for a variety of positions, including the librarian job. The closing day for submission was June 2, 2015, and the advertising specified that appointments will be made on a contract basis and based on interviews. A candidate for the Master of Library and Information Science post applied, and eight people were contacted for interviews. The respondent, whose name was omitted from the list, submitted a representation on February 20, 2015, and was contacted for an interview on February 24, 2015. For the role of the librarian, the respondent was chosen.

Contention from Parties 

The petitioner, who claimed to have a Master’s degree in library and information science, was disqualified from consideration for the position of librarian due to a lack of qualifications, whereas the respondent, a peon with less experience, was appointed based on secondary consideration because of her daughter’s relationship with the vice-chancellor. The petitioner and six other people were brought in for an interview, but their qualifications were not evaluated or assessed.

The respondent contended that she met the requirements listed in the advertisement for the role of the librarian and that, at the time of applying for the position, she already held a Master’s degree in library and information science. The advertising stipulated that female applicants would be given preference.

Conclusion of the Court 

According to Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of the Patna High Court’s Single Judge Bench, the petitioner’s claim that the respondent’s appointment had been made for unrelated purposes was true. The petitioner claimed that the appointment of the respondent had not been made lawfully. The Court went on to say that the argument of preference was meaningless since the interview selection committee had not evaluated each candidate on their own merits. The Court determined that the appointment of the Respondent was thus invalid under the law and was revoked.