IZAZ NAJMUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-1 a notice of the Principal, Indian College of Engineering, Motihari dated 27-6-1989 laying down principles as envisaged under S.10 of Bihar Private Engineering Colleges (Take-over) Ordinance, 1986. The said notice stated that the students of Indian College of Engineering, Motihari who have been promotted to IInd year B.Sc. engineering class are informed "that those who have obtained Distinction, 1st Class, IInd Class and have opted Civil Engineering branch have been allotted Civil Engineering Branch. Besides those having "carry" securing total marks up to 686 have also been allotted Civil Engineering branch. Those securing Distinction, 1st Class, IInd Class and have opted either for mechanical or electrical have been allotted branches of their choice. However, those having "carry" securing total marks ranging from 685 to 632 have been allotted mechanical engineering branch and those securing total marks ranging from 632 and below down to 490 have been allotted electrical branch."

(2.) This notice is sought to be quashed on the basis of the two judgments of this Court (i) C.W.J.Cs. No. 4510, 4003 and 4365 of 1988 decided on 7th of November, 1988 by a single Judge, and (ii) a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4402 of 1989 decided on 27-4-1989. We are afraid, none of these two judgments has any application to the facts of the present case. In the earlier single Judge decision there was no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State to the effect that a circular has already been issued laying down the criteria of allocation of discipline from 2nd year onwards which is in consonance with S. 10 of the Ordinance nor any criteria of merit for allotment of subject was brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, the said case was decided on its own facts and circumstances.

(3.) So far as the Division Bench judgment is concerned it has relied on a circular dated 30-12-1987. This circular was not brought to the notice of the single Judge. Division Bench's attention, however, was not drawn to the provision of S. 10 of the Ordinance which envisages merit and choice to be criteria for allotment of different discipline.