Priyanka Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 31-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accomplished profession holding a Master of Computer Applications (MCA) Degree. She has served for almost 12 years in a leading PSU Bank with strong academic foundation and deep rooted administrative expertise. She submitted an application for the post of Administrator at A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.06.2024. The petitioner received an email communication dated 11.02.2025, whereby she was asked for her qualifications and experience certificates. Later on, she received an information with regard to an offline interview, which was scheduled on 27.02.2025. The petitioner came to know through email dated 25.02.2025, i.e. two days prior to the scheduled date of interview that the interview has been cancelled. An email communication dated 24.05.2025, issued from the office of the Registrar, A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, the petitioner was informed that the interview would be conducted online on 04.06.2025 at 04:00 P.M.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that on 04.06.2025, the interview was again cancelled and it was rescheduled to 11.06.2025. The same was again cancelled on 11.06.2025 and was postponed to 12.06.2025. Finally, the interview was conducted on 14.06.2025 at 06:00 P.M. through Google Meet and the candidates, including the petitioner appeared for the online interview conducted via Google Meet. He submits that despite the interview being conducted on 14.06.2025, no result was notified or uploaded on the website of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies. The petitioner came to know that the Board of Control of A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies has approved the selection on 04.07.2025. The petitioner submitted her application before the authorities concerned of the Institute under Right to Information Act for providing certain information. Although, she received a reply on 21.01.2026 from the Registrar In-charge of the Institute, whereby it was informed to the petitioner that the BOC has approved a panel of six candidates for the post of Administrator, which did not include the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.02.2026 of the Registrar In-charge of the Institute, the petitioner was informed that one of the candidates, namely, Vikrant Kumar, who was one of the shortlisted candidates, amongst the six shortlisted candidates, had joined on the post of Administrator. The petitioner kept on asking for certain information with regard to marks obtained by the shortlisted candidates through the Right to Information Act, however it is the case of the petitioner that the Institute kept on providing evasive reply, although in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr. Versus Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr. passed in Appeal (C) No(s). 2783 of 2025, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has affirmed the orders/directions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which held that requests for disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act 2005, has to be given.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 4806 (Swapnil Tripathi versus the Supreme Court of India), it was observed that “Above all, sunlight is the best disinfectant” echoing the words of Louis Brandeis, the judge of the US Supreme Court, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “If the broad light of the day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects” and “the light of day is the best disinfectant.” He submits that despite repeated request made by the petitioner, the petitioner has not been provided with the information, so sought for by her through her applications under Right to Information Act and the authorities of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies are sitting tight over the matter. He submits that the petitioner was shortlisted for interview for recruitment on the post of Administrator, the information regarding her shortlisting for interview was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.02.2025, but even then, she was not made aware that whether final result has been published or not.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that unless details about the eligibility of the Members of the Screening Committee is made public, the fairness in the selection process cannot be deemed transparent. These details will throw light on whether Members of the Screening Committee were the same people and/or whether the Members of the Selection Committee can also be Members of the Screening Committee and vice versa. He submits that although it was not specified in the advertisement, the compelling circumstances under which the then Director, A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies chose to conduct online interview for the post of Administrator, instead of offline interview, after repeated postponement is not clear. He submits that the petitioner fulfills and matches the requirement, which was prescribed in the advertisement and even then, she had not been selected. He submits that a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2024 (Dr. Shishu Pal Singh @ Shishu Pal Singh versus the State of Bihar & Ors.), by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure specified in the advertisement and the same has to be maintained, unless otherwise specified by the Rules. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 167 (Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel versus the State of Gujarat and Ors.), has held that an advertisement binds the parties and carries the force of a statutory prescription unless contrary to the governing rules. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 (Tej Prakash Pathak versus Rajasthan High Court), has reaffirmed that the doctrine against changing the rules of the game midway is a facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and ensures fairness in public employment.

The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the respondents be directed to provide details about the Screening Committee, the Selection Committee with regard to compliance with the decision of the Board of Control of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies in the matter of composition of the Selection Committee for appointment of Administrator and to provide the details about the eligibility of the Members of the Screening Committee. They should inform whether members of the Screening Committee can be Members of the Selection Committee and vice versa. They be directed that the Standard Operative Procedure of the institute for conduct of online interview, instead of offline interview, should be published by the authorities.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one Vikrant Kumar has already joined on the post of Administrator and the petitioner has not impleaded the said Vikrant Kumar as party respondent in the present writ petition.

Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that vide Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, the petitioner in reply to her application under the Right to Information Act was informed by the In-charge Registrar of the Institute vide his letter dated 11.02.2026, with regard to joining on the post of Administrator by one Vikrant Kumar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got knowledge of the joining of the said Vikrant Kumar through the letter dated 11.02.2026. This Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, when the preliminary objection was raised by the State with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, granted indulgence to the petitioner for impleading the selected candidate, who has joined on the post of Administrator, which appears from the letter dated 11.02.2026 of the In-charge Registrar of the institute, however the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refused to do so. Considering that one of the candidates, namely, Vikrant Kumar has already joined on the post, which appears from the letter dated 11.02.2026 and despite opportunity granted by this Court to implead said Vikrant Kumar as party respondent, since he is the necessary party, on account of his joining on the post of Administrator and the refusal of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit to reject the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties, since any orders to be passed by this Court, on the prayers made in the writ petition, will affect his selection and joining.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties.