When Luck Overrides Merit: The Controversial Lottery-Based Principal Appointments in Patna University

In a move that has sparked widespread debate, Patna University has appointed principals to five of its affiliated colleges through a lottery system — a method never before seen in such a significant academic context. While the university administration claims this was an effort to promote transparency and eliminate political or internal favoritism, many educationists, political leaders, and academics are questioning the logic, legality, and ethical soundness of such a process, especially for key leadership roles in higher education.

At the heart of the controversy is Dr. Suheli Mehta, the Head of the Home Science Department at Magadh Mahila College. An academic with a strong track record and placed at the top of the merit list, she was appointed principal of Commerce College, a much smaller institution and outside her subject expertise. Reportedly, Dr. Mehta is disappointed with the outcome and is hesitant to take charge of the position, choosing instead to continue in her current role. This has raised fundamental concerns over how administrative decisions are being made in one of Bihar’s oldest and most reputed universities.

The full list of appointments made through the lottery includes:

Dr. Suheli Mehta (Home Science, Magadh Mahila College) → Principal, Commerce College

Prof. Anil Kumar (Chemistry) → Principal, Patna College

Prof. Alka Yadav (Home Science) → Principal, Patna Science College

Prof. Nagendra Verma (History) → Principal, Magadh Mahila College

Prof. Yogendra Kumar Verma → Principal, Patna Law College


The appointments were made following a process initiated by the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC), which had prepared a merit-based panel after interviews and scrutiny. However, instead of assigning principals to colleges based on qualifications and institutional needs, the final step — allotment of colleges — was done through a random draw. This, the authorities argue, was intended to maintain neutrality and prevent external influence, especially given the history of allegations around favoritism and political interference in college postings.

However, critics argue that while transparency is important, randomization undermines the principle of merit — especially in academia, where leadership and subject expertise play a vital role in shaping institutional quality. Educational institutions are not lottery booths, critics say, and reducing high-level academic appointments to chance weakens the very foundations of governance and planning in higher education.

One of the strongest criticisms came from BSP Chief Mayawati, who called it an attack on the dignity of education and demanded central government intervention. Student groups, teacher associations, and academics across Bihar echoed similar concerns. Many have called for a rollback of the appointments and a restructuring of the process based on academic alignment, leadership ability, and institution-specific needs.

In a significant development, the Patna High Court intervened on May 20, 2025, putting a temporary stay on the lottery-based appointment process. The court questioned the need for such a system in the case of principal appointments and sought clarification from the university and state education department. The next hearing was scheduled for June 16, but before the court could deliver a final verdict, the appointment orders were reportedly issued in early July. Whether this move violated court orders remains unclear.

The case of Dr. Suheli Mehta, in particular, exposes the flaws in the system. She is widely seen as one of the most deserving candidates — not only due to her subject matter expertise but also her administrative experience. Assigning her to a commerce-focused institution with little alignment to her academic background is being viewed as both a professional mismatch and a personal insult. Her reluctance to accept the position serves as a symbolic protest against the entire process.

At its core, this issue raises a larger question: Can chance ever be a substitute for competence? While transparency must be ensured, it cannot come at the cost of logical and educational suitability. By handing over such crucial appointments to a lottery, the university may have invited short-term neutrality but at the cost of long-term institutional stability.

In conclusion, Patna University’s experiment with a lottery-based appointment system has become a cautionary tale. It reflects the danger of overcorrecting for past administrative failures with simplistic solutions that may compromise academic integrity. As the matter continues to be debated in the courts and academic circles, it remains to be seen whether wisdom and merit will eventually find their rightful place in Bihar’s higher education landscape.