S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE writ petition was preferred by petitioner challenging the appointment of 4th respondent, Mr. Sanjay made vide letter No. RIT(E)/ 1522/2000 dated 28.2.2000 whereby he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The petitioner has also challenged the panel as was prepared on 23.11.1999 whereby 4th respondent was included in the list of successful candidates.
(2.) THE case of petitioner is that the respondent -RIT issued Advertisement No. KIT (E) -1236/99 dated 22.4.1999 for appointment to the teaching posts including the post of Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) in the then scale of Rs. 3700 -5700/ -. The petitioner as also 4th respondent, Sri Sanjay and other applied. It is alleged that though the 4th respondent was not qualified and there was no post to fill up from the waiting list, but because of mala fide and illegality committed by the 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad, the respondent No. 4 was appointed vide impugned letter dated 28.8.2000 as Assistants Professor (Mechanical Engineering). The grounds to challenge the appointment of 4th respondent as highlighted by his counsel are as follows : (i) The 4th respondent was not qualified having no five years experience either in teaching or industry or research at the appropriate level; (ii) There was no third post available when the advertisement was issued on 22.4.1999. The subsequent vacancy could not have been filled up out of the panel or waiting list prepared in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.4.1999; (iii) The 4th respondent was appointed because of illegal help of 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad; AND (iv) The so -called Selection Board was not competent to select as the expert, Chandrika Roy was not appointed as the Chairman of the Selection Board by the Board of Governors. In respect to first question of eligibility, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent was a Post Graduate Engineering student at Allahabad during 1996 -98. For such period, any experience certificate given to him by Delhi Company, cannot be accepted. If such experience from 1996 is not taken into consideration, it will be evident that the 4th respondent had no five years experience as per advertisement as on the cut -off date. The aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner was denied by the 3rd respondent as also the 4th respondent. To find out the truth, the original records were called for which I have gone through. It appears that the 4th respondent claimed five years experience in industry at the appropriate level i.e. the period he obtained experience after passing B.E. degree. He was appointed in M/s. Syner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and worked between 1993 to 15th August, 1994 at Allahabad where he was posted. During this period, the 4th respondent was also a part time M.E. student completed 1st and 2nd semester in evening course. Thereafter the 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited, New Delhi and worked between 23.9.1994 to 1.8.1995 at New Delhi. For this reason, the 4th respondent could not appear in part time M.E. course during the aforesaid period. Subsequently, 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., New Delhi and worked between 3rd August, 1995 to 1st April, 1998 at Naini Office, Allahabad. During this period, he having posted at Allahabad, could attend the part time M.E. Course in evening and completed 3rd, 4th and 5th semester. The M.E. course being part time, instead of 4th semester it was 5th semester course. Thereafter the 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad where he worked since 3.8.1998 upto 22.2.2000.
(3.) FROM the aforesaid fact, I find that the 4th respondent had requisite five years experience in the industries at appropriate level as on the cut -off date and thus, he was eligible for appointment.;