BHARAT BHUSHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the requisition of the State of Bihar, the Bihar Public Service Commission issued Advetisement No. 1 of 1995 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Director -cum -Principal, Engineering College. Three such posts which were lying vacant were advertised, one of which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Caste, while the other two were unreserved posts. The Bihar Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates who had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, and ultimately recommended for appointment the names of Bharat Bhushan Prasad, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10895 of 1996 and Dr. Ram Narain Singh, petitioner in C.W.J.C. 11970 of 1996. The Government found that the advertisement issued inviting applications from eligible candidates, was defective inasmuch as the norms prescribed by All India Council for Technical Education were not followed. It is not in dispute that the posts in question are to be filled up by direct recruitment, having regard to the norms and standards for Engineering Colleges prescribed by All India Council for Technical Education which have been accepted by the Government of Bihar. Since the advertisement was found to be defective, instead of acting on the recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission, by its communication dated 22.7.1996 (Annexure -1) the State of Bihar had issued a requisition to the Bihar Public Service Commission to readvertise the three posts in accordance with the norms and then to recommend suitable names for appointment against those posts. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have imposed the said requisition bearing no. 1395 dated 22.7.1996. They have prayed that after quashing the aforesaid requisition the State of Bihar may be directed to act upon the recommendation of the respondent. Commission forwarded to the State of Bihar -vide letter no. 195 dated 21.11.1995, and issued the consequential letters of appointment in favour of the petitioner in both the writ petitions.

(2.) SINCE the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, and identical reliefs have been prayed for in both the writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The representative facts are taken from C.W.J.C. No. 10895 of 1996.

(3.) IT may at this stage be noticed that AICTE norms prescribe the qualification and experience of candidates eligible for appointment to the post of Professor as also to the post of Principal. They are as follows: ''PROFESSOR -Providing leadership in both postgraduate and under -graduate courses in relevant field of specialisation. i. Ph. D. with First Class Bachelor 's or Master 's Degree in Engg/Technology or Research and research guidance Consultancy service. Ph. D. Degree with First Class Bachelor of M.Sc. in appropriate batch for teaching posts in Humanities and Sciences. -Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and Promotional Activities both at Departmental and institutional level ii. 10 years distinguished experience in teaching./industry/research out of which 5 years must be at the level of Assistant Professor or equivalent. -Curriculum Development and developing resource materials. -Design and development of new programmes. -Continuing education activities. -Interaction with industry and Society. -Students counselling and interaction -Administration both at Department and institutional levels. NOTE : Candidates from industry/profession with recognised professional work of high standard recognised at National/international level equivalent to Doctorate would also be eligible. PRINCIPAL -Academic and Administrative management of the institutions Same as that of Professor. -Policy planning and providing academic and administrative leadership. Desirable Administrative experience in a responsible position. -Monitoring and Evaluation and research activities. -Promotion of industry -institution interaction and R&D work. -Providing consultancy services. -Participation in Policy planning at the Regional/National level for development of technical education. '' It may be noticed that AICTE norms do not prescribe any age limit. It is also not in dispute that the 'Note ' mentioned in the norms providing that candidates from industry/profession with recognised professional work of high standard recognised at National /International level equivalent to Doctorate would also be eligible, was not included in the advertisement as the same was deleted. Thus there are two points on which the advertisement differs from the norms prescribed by the AICTE namely, (a) prescription of age limit for appointment to the post of Principal; And (b) deletion of the 'Note ' applicable to the qualification and experience of candidates for the post of Professor. It may also be noticed that since the qualification and experience prescribed for Principal were the same as that of Professor, the 'Note ' also applied in the case of appointment to the post of Principal.