RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, counsel representing Bihar Public Service Commission and the counsel appearing for the State. The advertisement, contained in Annexure -1 and some of the clauses of the advertisement, which is creating impediment in the way of consideration of the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Professors under various streams, is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Application.

(2.) THERE is no dispute on the basic fact that Annexure -1 came to be issued by Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission" for short) on the basis of requisition made by the State Government to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors. The number of posts available and the qualification etc. are laid down in the advertisement itself, contained in Annexure -1. All the three petitioners have responded to the advertisement, but the respondent -authorities are not willing to accept their claim or even give them an opportunity for consideration for such appointment, which has been termed to be arbitrary on behalf of the petitioners. A frontal attack has been made with regard to the cut -off date, which has been fixed, by which three years experience as a Senior Resident or Tutors was required to be obtained.

(3.) IN the Writ Application itself in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8, the status of the three petitioners when they would complete three years of period have been indicated. It is supposed to be 29.8.2011 in relation to the petitioner no. 1, 5.9.2011 for petitioner no. 2 and 13.8.2008 (sic - -2011?) so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned. To that extent it cannot be argued that they have or will complete three years tenure prior to 31.7.2011. However, since the three years term is not very far from the cut -off date fixed, i.e., 31.7.2011, a liberal view ought to have been taken by the respondents in accommodating these petitioners.