Paper Publication Mandatory for Marks and Selection: NO HC Relief to Doctor Denied Assistant Professor Job

Upholding the BPSC's decision, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri emphasized that the selection criteria clearly stipulated marks for "published" research papers, not merely those accepted for publication. The Court further clarified that the mere acceptance of a paper for publication does not equate to its actual publication.

Dr Sangeeta Singh filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, challenging the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for not awarding her 10 marks for journal publication during the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The case revolved around Advertisement No. 20/2017 issued by the BPSC, which invited applications for 1171 Assistant Professor positions in various medical colleges of Bihar. Dr Singh, a resident of Darbhanga, Bihar, applied for the post and fulfilled the essential qualifications, including a postgraduate degree and teaching experience.

The selection process involved an evaluation of academic achievements, teaching experience, and journal publications. Dr Singh scored a total of 31 marks, which included 5 marks for her MBBS degree, 10 marks for her postgraduate degree (MD/MS/DNB), 10 marks for teaching experience, and 1 mark in the interview.

However, she was awarded 0 marks for journal publications, which became the crux of the dispute. The cutoff score for the unreserved category was set at 37.5, and since Dr Singh fell short, her application was rejected in favor of candidates with higher scores.

Aggrieved, the doctor moved the court. She argued that she was unfairly denied the 10 marks allocated for journal publications under Clause 3(b) of the advertisement. She claimed that her article had been accepted for publication in a medical journal but was not yet published due to factors such as rotational scheduling and space limitations in the journal. Despite this, she contended that the article's acceptance should qualify her for the marks. She further alleged that the BPSC’s refusal to award these marks was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating her rights under Articles 15(1) and 15(3) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner emphasized that had the 10 marks been awarded, her total score would have risen to 41, making her eligible for selection as an Assistant Professor. She asserted that the BPSC’s decision not to recognize her article’s acceptance as sufficient evidence of publication was unjust and inconsistent with the advertisement’s terms.

Consequently, she sought relief from the court, requesting directions to the BPSC to award her the 10 marks, add them to her total score, and recommend her name for appointment to the position.

The central issue before the court was whether the BPSC erred in denying Dr Singh the marks for journal publication despite her article being accepted but not yet published. The petitioner claimed that this oversight not only deprived her of a fair chance at selection but also constituted a violation of her constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination. The case was brought before the Patna High Court for adjudication of these claims and to seek a remedy for the alleged injustice.

The Respondents (The Chairman, The Special Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller, and The Secretary), representing the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), filed a counter affidavit on January 12, 2022, asserting that the petitioner’s paper had not been published in any medical journal. Consequently, they argued that the petitioner was not eligible for the 10 marks allocated for publication of scientific papers in medical journals. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s assessment was conducted correctly, and the writ petition was therefore liable for dismissal.

In response, the petitioner submitted a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, reiterating her claim as stated in her earlier affidavit dated July 16, 2024. She emphasized that she had submitted certificates issued by the Patna Journal of Medicine and the Indian Medical Journal as part of her application form. These certificates were physically verified during the interview process and confirmed that her paper had been accepted for publication by the Patna Medical Journal. Based on this acceptance, the petitioner argued that she was entitled to the 10 marks for publication as stipulated in the advertisement.

During the admission of the writ petition on August 1, 2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court directed the petitioner to implead the candidates who had been selected for the post of Assistant Professor in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department across various medical colleges in Bihar. Consequently, the petitioner impleaded 31 candidates who were appointed as part of the selection process. However, the interlocutory application for impleading these candidates was not pressed further by the petitioner, and no formal order was passed to implead the private respondents.

The petitioner’s counsel, Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate, argued that the sole issue in the writ petition was whether an article accepted for publication by the editorial board of a medical journal could be considered a published article for the purpose of awarding marks, or if physical publication in the journal was mandatory. This question, he asserted, was crucial for determining the petitioner’s eligibility for the 10 marks and required judicial intervention.

The petitioner’s counsel referenced the Patna High Court's Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 830 of 2014, which interpreted Clause 4(A)(ii) of the "Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions (Amendment) Regulations, 2009," emphasizing the need for research publications to be published or accepted by recognized journals in relevant specialties.

However, the Division Bench, in its judgment, emphasized that mere acceptance of an article does not amount to publication. For an article to be considered published, it must be brought into the public domain. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of "publication" in Collector of Central Excise vs. New Tobacco Co. & Ors. (1998), which held that publication requires dissemination to the public, not just printing or acceptance. The Division Bench further ruled that eligibility criteria, including publication requirements, must be met by the cut-off date specified by the recruiting agency to maintain uniformity and fairness in the selection process.

The petitioner’s counsel also cited a Bombay High Court decision in W.P. No. 1383 of 2022 (Dr. Sunil vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), decided on February 13, 2023, which held that acceptance of a research paper for publication, even if published after the cut-off date, met the eligibility criteria for awarding marks.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Bombay High Court’s reasoning aligned with the guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI), which recognize acceptance for publication as fulfilling the requirement. By ignoring this principle, the BPSC and the Expert Committee acted unfairly and arbitrarily. The petitioner urged the Patna High Court to consider this broader interpretation and award her the marks based on the acceptance of her research paper for publication.

At this juncture, the Patna High Court observed that there are two contradictory decisions rendered by the Division Benches of two High Courts—one by the Patna High Court and another by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. It is well-established that when there is a contradiction in legal principles, the decision of the home High Court shall prevail. Therefore, this Court is bound to accept the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Ors. v. Dr. Jagat Narayan Nayak & Anr.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged the Court to resolve the issue on equitable grounds, given the contradictory decisions by the Division Benches of the two High Courts. The Counsel, in support of his contention, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. v. C. Mathew (Dr) & Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 752. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that candidates must possess required qualifications by the application deadline, though proof could be submitted later. It held that attaching certificates was directory, not mandatory, and emphasized justice over technicalities, allowing the selection committee to verify qualifications post-application.

The petitioner's Counsel urged the Court to apply equitable principles of justice, as the petitioner's scientific paper was accepted by the journal before the cut-off date, although it was not published at the time of her interview. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the Respondents/BPSC submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has already held that acceptance for publication cannot be considered equivalent to publication for awarding extra marks in the selection process for Assistant Professor. Thus, the Court must adhere to this earlier decision, and the decision of the Bombay High Court is not applicable here.

On the other hand, the Respondents' counsel cited multiple precedents affirming that statutory provisions prevail over equity, strict adherence to law is mandatory, and equitable considerations cannot override clear legal provisions. Judicial discipline and consistency were emphasized, requiring coordinate Benches to follow prior rulings or refer disputes to larger Benches.

After hearing the learned counsels for both parties and considering the factual circumstances of the case, along with the decisions presented by the counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, the Court clarified that it is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 830 of 2014, and is duty-bound to adhere to the principles of Judicial Discipline, propriety, and the doctrine of precedence, which ensures consistency in judicial decisions.

The Court explained that when the law, rule, or administrative instructions, including notifications, are clear and unambiguous, the principle of equity cannot be invoked to overturn a decision made by the respondent authority based on such a notification. The Advertisement in question clearly specified that a candidate would receive 10 marks for the publication of a paper. It does not state that the 10 marks would be granted if a candidate’s paper was accepted for publication in a medical journal. Granting marks for acceptance of a paper, without it being actually published, would create inequality between candidates whose papers were published and those whose papers were accepted but not yet published. The facts of Charles K. Skaria (supra) differ significantly from the current case, as the candidates in that case had obtained their Diploma in Ophthalmology before the cut-off date for admission to the MD/MS courses.

The Court further observed that in the aforementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applying the principle of equity, held that denying marks to candidates who had actually acquired the Diploma before the application deadline for MD/MS courses would be unfair. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s paper was not published on the date of her interview, nor was the date of publication disclosed.

Additionally, the court noted that it is unaware whether the paper was ever published. Therefore, the mere selection of a paper for publication does not equate to its actual publication. Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted a copy of the published paper with her writ petition. It said;

“In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner's paper was not published on the date of interview and even the petitioner did not disclose the subsequent date when her paper was published. The Court is unaware as to whether the said Patna High Court CWJC No.7171 of 2021 dt.17-12-2024 paper was actually published or not. Thus, selection for publication, I am constrained to held, does not mean publication. The petitioner has not annexed a copy of the published paper along with the instant writ petition.”

“Under such circumstances, this Court is constrained to note that the equitable principle follows the law. Though, this principle is not universally true or this would never have been occasion for development of separate code of equitable principles, it means that equity towards the common law as laying the foundation of all jurisprudence, and it does not depart unnecessarily from legal principles.”

“In matters coming before it, which depends solely on legal rights, as in legal claims, arising in the course of an administrative action, equity applies the rule of law as appropriate system; in such cases, the rule of law are in fact binding in equity.’

Subsequently, the court dismissed the petition and held;

“For the reasons stated above, as this Court already held that on the date of selection, the petitioner failed to produce the published paper in medical journal, she was rightly refused to grant 10 marks by the Expert Committee.”

“In view of such circumstances, I do not find any scope for interference against the administrative action by the Patna High Court CWJC No.7171 of 2021 dt.17-12-2024 respondents and the instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, on contest.”

To view the high court order click on the link below:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126099761/