The Bihar government’s education department has sought detailed clarifications from the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) regarding its recommendation to appoint Rural Works Minister Ashok Chaudhary as an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Pataliputra University. The move has brought renewed attention to the selection process for university appointments and has triggered both administrative scrutiny and political debate.

Ashok Chaudhary, a senior leader and serving minister in the Nitish Kumar-led government, was recommended by the BSUSC under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category as part of a broader recruitment exercise for assistant professors in Political Science across constituent colleges of Pataliputra University. However, when the university released its list of 18 recommended candidates last week, Chaudhary’s name was conspicuously absent. Instead, his status was marked as “kept waiting,” prompting questions about the reasons behind the delay.

Addressing the media on Monday, Education Minister Sunil Kumar confirmed that the education department had returned Chaudhary’s case to the BSUSC for its “opinion and review” after certain issues emerged during an internal enquiry. While the minister did not specify the exact nature of the concerns, an official communique issued by the department of higher education later clarified that the matter relates to the scrutiny of Chaudhary’s PhD degree.

According to the communique, Chaudhary’s doctoral degree, awarded by Magadh University, is yet to be examined in accordance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2009. These regulations lay down detailed norms for the award, evaluation, and recognition of PhD degrees, especially for eligibility in teaching positions at universities and colleges. Until this scrutiny is completed, the department has decided to withhold final approval of the appointment and seek a formal response from the BSUSC.

“The department has examined the matter carefully and felt it necessary to revert the case to the commission,” Education Minister Sunil Kumar said. He emphasised that the education department itself does not make appointments. “Appointments are made by the commission, and the department acts on their recommendations. The commission will now give its opinion,” he added, underlining the procedural separation between the recommending authority and the administrative department.

The communique from the department of higher education also provided broader context to the recruitment process. Out of 280 sanctioned vacancies for Assistant Professor of Political Science, the BSUSC recommended 274 candidates. Six positions remain vacant for various reasons. Three candidates were reported to be unavailable, while two candidates in the unreserved category have been kept waiting due to pending scrutiny of their experience certificates. In Chaudhary’s case, falling under the SC category, the delay is specifically linked to the pending verification of his PhD degree under UGC norms.

A senior official in the department of higher education stressed that Chaudhary’s name was not recommended by the department itself, clarifying that the role of the department is limited to processing and implementing recommendations made by the commission. Meanwhile, Rajiv Raushan, the first secretary of the newly created department of higher education who assumed charge on December 15, said he was not fully aware of the details of the case, given his recent appointment, and was therefore not in a position to comment substantively.

The development has surprised many within academic and administrative circles because the BSUSC’s empowered expert committee had already scrutinised candidates’ documents during the selection process. The committee awarded marks based on academic qualifications, research credentials, and other eligibility criteria, which then formed the basis for calling candidates for interviews. Following the interviews, the commission formally recommended candidates for appointment.

Under established procedure, once the commission issues its recommendations, the appointing authority — in this case, the respective university — is responsible for verifying the original documents and credentials before issuing appointment letters. This verification typically takes place after candidates submit their documents and take an oath. The emergence of questions at this stage, particularly concerning a PhD degree that had already been evaluated during the selection process, has raised concerns about procedural consistency and timing.

The issue has also acquired political overtones, with opposition parties questioning both the appointment and the process that led to Chaudhary’s recommendation. Congress spokesperson Asit Nath Tiwari criticised the situation, arguing that it reflects poorly on the credibility of the recruitment system. “The commission has recommended his name on the basis of a PhD degree, which the department now finds suspicious. This is bound to raise eyebrows about the appointment process,” Tiwari said.

The controversy is not entirely new. Chaudhary’s proposed appointment as an assistant professor had already sparked debate in the run-up to the elections, with Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor publicly questioning both the eligibility of a serving minister for an academic post and the transparency of the selection process. Critics have argued that such appointments blur the line between politics and academia, while supporters contend that political office should not disqualify an individual from holding an academic position if eligibility criteria are met.

Chaudhary, who also served as a minister in a previous Nitish Kumar cabinet, has not publicly responded to the latest developments. Attempts by the media to contact him for comment were unsuccessful, as he did not respond to calls or messages.

The case has broader implications for higher education governance in Bihar. It highlights the complexities involved in recruitment processes that involve multiple institutions — the commission, the department, and the universities — each with defined but interlinked roles. It also underscores the importance of clear, transparent, and timely verification of academic credentials, particularly in high-profile cases that attract public and political scrutiny.

As the education department awaits a response from the BSUSC, the future of Chaudhary’s appointment remains uncertain. The commission’s opinion on the pending scrutiny of his PhD degree, and whether it meets UGC regulations, will be crucial in determining the next steps. Until then, his case remains in limbo, emblematic of the challenges facing academic recruitment in a politically charged environment.