RAJIV RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's application for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in an Engineering College in terms of the response to Annexure-1 (the advertisement) has been rejected. The reason for rejection communicated in Annexure-3 is that the petitioner does not have the requisite experience for consideration for appointment on the post. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the communication contained in Annexure-3, he filed a detailed representation before the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). That too was rejected by a cryptic order as would be evident from perusal of Annexure-4. As the petitioner did not understand the true reason for rejection of his case for consideration, he decided to fi'e this writ application seeking a direction on the respondent Commission to consider his case for appointment as an Assistant Professor and for quashing Annexure-3, if not Annexure-4.

(2.) Submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he does have the requisite experience and he fulfills the requirements laid down by the Commission as details of requirements are readily available as Annexure-1 which was issued on 7.3.2009. The details of the academic qualification and the experience had been furnished by the petitioner which included his teaching even in the part time capacity in what is known as Lalit Narain Mishra College of Business Management. It all adds upto 5 years experience which was required for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.

(3.) A bare reading of Annexure-3 or Annexure-4 actually does not make a per-son wiser as to what was exactly the reason or the ground where the petitioner lacked experience. It is only now after the counter affidavit has been filed and matter explained in greater detail that it has emerged that all told the petitioner had working experience as a Lecturer only for four years and two months and the minimum requirement was five years. Stand of the Commission is that the working experience furnished by the petitioner as a Lecturer in Lalit Narayan Mishra College of Business Management has been taken into consideration and no serious objection as such has been raised by the respondents on that aspect of his experience. However, it is a part time lecturership which the petitioner had under Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur from 1.1.2008 till 24.7.2009 which is the subject matter of dispute. Stand in so many words of the Commission is that the advertisement itself had clarified that experience as a part time lecturer would not be taken into consideration to add up for the minimum eligibility i.e. five years. However, it may be considered for granting exemption in age. All told, the decision not to consider the application of the petitioner is in the above stated background.