ARYENDRA PRASAD Vs. DHARMENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to appointment on the post of Principal, Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Patna City (in short, 'the College '). On 4.6.2000 the Governing Body of the College appointed the petitioner on the post on recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission (in short, 'the Commission ') in anticipation of the approval of the University i.e. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking direction to implement the recommendation of the Commission. On 22.9.2001 the University communicated its disapproval. After this development took place the petitioner filed amended petition seeking quashing the said decision of the University dated 22.9.2001 enclosing the same as Annexure 17 to the petition. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows.

(2.) AN advertisement, being Advt. No. 195/98, was published by the Commission inviting applications for the post of Principal of the College, from the eligible candidates. As per the laid down qualifications candidates possessing First or High Second class Master 'sDegree or equivalent Degree of a Foreign University with consistent good academic record and not less than twelve years teaching experience at least as lecturer in the Degree College/University Department were eligible to apply. The requirement of first class to high second class Master 'sDegree was relaxable in the case of a teacher who apart from obtaining his own Ph.D. degree had successfully guided research work leading to the award of Doctorate degree or had published considerable research work in the standard journal. The relaxation however was available to only pre -1977 appointees. The petitioner, amongst others, applied for the post. By letter no. 1684 dated 13.3.2000 the Commission recommended him as the first nominee for the post. The second nominee was one Dr. Ravi Shankar Jha. On 4.6.2000 the Governing Body of the college resolved to appoint the petitioner. There appears to be a dispute about the constitution of the Governing Body but it is unnecessary to go into that aspect because the resolution of the Governing Body was disapproved by the University as stated above.

(3.) THE ony ground on which the University declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner is that he lacks in the prescribed qualifications. The lack of qualification is said to be two -fold. It is said that the petitioner did not have high second class Master 'sdegree because as he had less than 55% marks (to be precise 54.3%) and, further, he did not have 12 years teaching experience. I shall consider the question relating to teaching experience.