The Patna High Court recently ruled on a case involving the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) and a candidate for the position of Assistant Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology. The dispute revolved around whether marks for journal publications could be awarded for a research paper that had been accepted but not yet published. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of following clear selection criteria and upheld the BPSC’s policy.

The Case: Dr. Singh’s Petition

Dr. Singh, a qualified doctor with a postgraduate degree and teaching experience, applied for the Assistant Professor post under Advertisement No. 20/2017, which offered 1171 positions in various medical colleges across Bihar.

While she scored 31 marks for her qualifications, teaching experience, and interview, she was awarded 0 marks for journal publications because her research paper, though accepted for publication, had not been officially published. The cut-off score for selection in the unreserved category was 37.5, leaving her short of qualifying.

The Dispute Over Marks for Publication

Dr. Singh argued that her article’s acceptance for publication should qualify for the 10 marks allocated for journal publications under the advertisement’s terms. She contended that delays in publication were beyond her control and that the BPSC’s decision to deny the marks was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The BPSC, however, maintained that marks could only be awarded for published papers, as specified in the advertisement. They argued that awarding marks for acceptance would create inequality and violate the selection criteria.

Court’s Decision

The court sided with the BPSC, emphasizing that:

1. Published Papers Are Mandatory: Marks could only be granted for papers that were actually published, as specified in the selection criteria.
2. Equity Cannot Override Rules: While equitable principles are important, they cannot supersede clear, unambiguous rules or notifications.
3. Judicial Precedence: The court upheld the earlier decision in LPA No. 830 of 2014, which stated that acceptance of a paper does not equate to publication.

The court also noted that Dr. Singh had not provided proof of her paper being published, either during the selection process or in her petition.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Clarity in Selection Criteria: The decision reinforces the need for clear rules in selection processes and strict adherence to them.
2. Publication vs. Acceptance: Only papers that are officially published by the cut-off date are eligible for marks in competitive selection processes.
3. Judicial Discipline: Courts must follow established precedents to ensure consistency in rulings.

Implications for Future Applicants

This case serves as a reminder to candidates applying for academic positions:

• Ensure all publications meet the specified criteria (i.e., are published, not just accepted).
• Submit proper documentation during the application process to avoid disputes.
• Understand that selection processes prioritize fairness and adherence to rules over subjective considerations.

The Bigger Picture

The case highlights larger issues in the academic field, such as:

• Delays in Publication: Researchers often face delays due to factors like journal scheduling, impacting their eligibility for academic roles.
• Access to Opportunities: Clear and consistent policies are necessary to ensure fairness in competitive selections.

While Dr. Singh was not granted relief, the case underscores the importance of aligning academic qualifications with the specified requirements to avoid similar challenges.

To register for our next masterclass please click here https://linktr.ee/docpreneur