S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking a. direction upon the respondents for considering his candidature for appointment as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at BIT, Sindri. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner has been working as Lecturer, Mechanical Department, BIT, Sindri since, 17.10.1994. An advertisement was issued on 22.06.2007 inviting applications for appointment on various posts including the post of Assistant Professor, for which, the petitioner also applied. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 17.08.2007 amending the necessary qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor was issued. The petitioner appeared and he was selected. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission vide letter dated 07.09.2011. However, the petitioner was not offered appointment and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission stating as under: 6. That it is stated that pursuant to advertisement No. 8/2007, interview of the candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in BIT, Sindri was conducted by the Commission in the period from 22.12.2010 to 24.12.2010 and as per decision of the Commission the names of the candidates were provisionally recommended post wise category wise for Mechanical Engineering faculty vide letter No. 1140 dated 16.08.2011 in which the name of the petitioner Shri Mithilesh Kumar figured at Sl No. 2. 7. That thereafter several representation were received in the office of the Commission from candidates possessing Ph.D degree who were not selected on the basis of marks given in the interview and evaluation of their academic career and evaluation of their academic career which was done on the basis of circular of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand which provides for taking out the average of percentage of marks obtained by a candidate from matriculation. 8. That on receipt of such representation the Commission in its meeting held on 29.08.2011 felt that for teaching posts some weightage ought to be given to the Ph.D degree and decided to give 10% weightage to the Ph.D degree holder. 9. That on the basis of such decision of the Commission as aforesaid, a revised list of the recommended Candidates were sent to the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter No. 1287 dated 07.09.2011 in which the name of the petitioner finds place at SL No. 3. The respondent -State of Jharkhand has also filed a counter -affidavit taking an objection that subsequent to advertisement and the corrigendum, the All India Council for Technical Education prescribed qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor whereunder, holding a Ph.D degree for appointment on the post of Associate Professor (Assistant Professor) was made mandatory.
(3.) A plea has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that, since the qualification which was earlier prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education was subsequently changed and modified by the All India Council for Technical Education, the name of the petitioner, who admittedly does not possess the said qualification, should not have been recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Paragraph Nos. 8 to 14 of the counter -affidavit are as under: 8. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that on the basis of this advertisement and the corrigendum issued, a candidate desirous of being appointed on the post of Assistant Professor was required to possess the qualification of Ph.D with First Class Degree at Bachelor's or Master's level in the appropriate branch under the head of experience it was stated that those candidates with First Class Degree at Master's level in the appropriate branch of engineering with five years experience in teaching could also apply. However, such candidates, if selected would have to complete Ph.D within seven years. 9 That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that however, before the appointment for the post of Assistant Professor and Professor could be made the AICTE issued fresh notification vide tow -no F. No. 37 -3Legal/2010 dated 13.03.10 and a subsequent corrigendum issued on 14.05.10 bringing about certain changes in the eligibility criteria for the various posts. 10. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that from a kind perusal of Annexure -A and A/1 to the counter affidavit, it shall appear that the post of lecturers was rechristened as Assistant Professor and accordingly the post of Assistant Professor was rechristened as Associate Professor. 11. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that it shall further appear the liberty allowed to the Assistant Professor (in the changed scenario Associate Professors) to complete Ph.D. Degree within seven years of their appointment was done away with meaning thereby that a candidate desirous of being appointed on the post of Associate Professor must possess Ph.D. Degree on the date of his making an application for the said post. 12. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that the said notification issued by the AICTE was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide resolution taken vide memo No. 784 dated 31.03.12 with effect from 01.01.2006. By the said notification The teaching faculty was extended the benefit of pay revision and their salary was brought at par with the employees of the Central government. Clause -4 of the letter No. 784 dated 31.03.12 made it clear that by the said Circular all conditions applicable to the employees of the Central Government would be applicable, except the enhancement of age of retirement. It is also relevant to point out that the petitioners have been held entitled to benefit of pay revision from 01.01.2006 and also drawing salary on revised pay scale as per AICTE 6th Pay Rules. On the one hand the petitioner has accepted the revised provided in the fetter No. 784 dated 31.03.12 on the other hand they are not ready to accept the changed eligibility criteria provided in the same letter for direct appointment on higher post. 13. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that after the adoption of the recommendations of the AICTE the State Government was bound to make appointment in conformity with the recommendations of the AICTE. 14. That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that since during the pendency of the advertisement the eligibility criteria had under gone a change rendering the petitioner ineligible for the post of Associate Professor, he could not be appointed on the post of Associate Professor.;