D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) L.P.A. No. 658 of 2015 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013, whereby, the prayer for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Telecom Engineering, in pursuance of public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22nd June, 2007, has not been granted by the learned Single Judge. Factual Matrix: A Public advertisement was issued by the respondent-State authorities bearing Advertisement No. 8 of 2007 dated 22 June, 2007, for several posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering. The said advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A. In pursuance of the aforesaid public advertisement, applications were preferred by these two appellants (original petitioners) who were already working as Lecturer in B.I.T., Sindri. Thereafter, selection process was started by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as J.P.S.C. for the sake of brevity). These appellants appeared in all the tests including written as well as viva-voce test. Their names were recommended by the J.P.S.C. on 02.12.2011 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this LPA) for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering branch on the basis of rules and regulations prevailing as on date of advertisement. It further appears from the facts of the case that All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred to as AICTE) has issued a Notification on 5.3.2010 that for the post of Associate Professor, a candidate must have Ph.D. Degree on the date of application. This notification was adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31st March, 2012, and the post of Assistant Professor is now re-designated as Associate Professor. Thus, the selection process was started with advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and the written as well as viva-vorce tests were completed by December, 2011. Before December, 2011, names of several candidates were recommended for their appointment by the JPSC on different dates like 7.9.2011 and 2.12.2011 etc. It has been orally submitted by counsel for the appellants that the recommendation made by the JPSC for the post of Assistant Professor dated 7.9.2011, has partly been operated and some candidates have also been given appointment letters on the basis of old rules, applicable as on date of advertisement. These candidates are: (a) Mithilesh Kumar and (b) Deo Kumar Tanti have been appointed as Assistant professor in the year 2013. Thus, the recommendations of the JPSC have been operated for few of the candidates on the basis of earlier rules applicable to the candidates as on date of advertisement i.e. as on 22nd June, 2007, whereas, for few of the candidates the respondents are denying the appointment mainly on the ground that now, after advertisement and after the selection process has already been commenced and completed, the rules for the post have been changed and, therefore, these appellants (original petitioners) have preferred W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013 which has not been allowed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.
(2.) Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellants: (i) Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 was issued on 22.6.2007, for the post of Assistant Professor in several branches of Engineering including Telecom Engineering. These appellants had applied for the said posts. The selection process was commenced by J.P.S.C. and also viva-voce tests were completed and these appellants were found successful in comparison to other candidates for the appointment and, therefore, their names were also recommended by the JPSC. The recommendations were made on different dates by the JPSC depending upon the completion of the selection process. One such recommendation is dated 7.9.2011 and another is 2nd December, 2011 for these two appellants. (ii) It has further been submitted that the candidates whose names have been recommended by the JPSC, for the post of Assistant Professor, on the basis of the rules applicable as on date of advertisement and on the basis of the rules applicable to the candidates during the process of selection. These recommendations have partly been accepted by the State of Jharkhand and few candidates have also been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, out of the list of recommendation dated 7.9.2011. Thus, the recommendations of the JPSC have been operated by the State of Jharkhand partly for few candidates whereas, for other candidates like these appellants objection has been raised that now, after advertisement and after selection process is completed by JPSC, the rules have been changed for the post of Associate Professor. Now the post of Assistant Professor is converted into Associate Professor. These new rules are not applicable to these candidates because they were accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31st March, 2012, whereas, the selection process was completed by the JPSC much earlier and a part of the recommendation of JPSC has also been operated by the State of Jharkhand. (iii) Counsel for the appellants (original petitioners) has relied upon judgments reported in:- (a) (1997) 6 SCC 623 (Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors.) (b) (2010) 13 SCC 467 (State of Bihar and Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar) (c) (2014) 8 SCC 644 (Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and Anr.) Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 151 of 2014 dated 16.06.2005 against which S.L.P. Vide C.C. No. 3833 of 2016 was preferred by the State which was dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2016. (iv) On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that once advertisement is published, the selection process has already been commenced and when the JPSC has already recommended the names of the candidates along with these two appellants for their appointment on 2.12.2011 and when the State of Jharkhand has accepted few recommendation from the recommendations of the JPSC dated 7.9.2011, especially for Md. Abul Kalam and Mr. Deo Kumar Tanti and when they have also been appointed as Assistant Professor on the basis of the earlier rules, the new rules adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, cannot be made applicable to the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and whose names have also been recommended on 2.12.2011. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge while dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013, preferred by these appellants and hence, the said judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by counsel for the State: (i) Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that a Notification was issued by AICTE on 5.3.2010 that for the post of Associate Professor, candidates must possess Ph.D. Degree as on date of application. This Notification was accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012. As the appointment letters have not been given to these two appellants, the newly changed qualifications are applicable to these appellants, despite the fact that they are the candidates who have applied for the post in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and despite the fact that selection process has commenced and completed and though the recommendations have been made by the JPSC on 2.12.2011. (ii) It has further been submitted that selected candidates have no vested right to the appointment and the counsel for the State relied upon decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in: (1) (1991) 3 SCC 47 (Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India) (2) (2010) 6 SCC 614 (Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and others) (3) (2012) 1 JCR 298 (SC) (Parmender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by counsel for the State that even if, the candidate is selected he has no right to be appointed and, hence, even though the name of these two candidates have been recommended by the JPSC on 2.12.2011, but, the qualification for the said post has been changed and the said change is accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, the newly changed qualification, rules are applicable to these two appellants and hence, the learned single judge should not have given the direction that the claim of these appellants shall be considered by the respondent-State because there is no question of any consideration with respect to these two appellants because they have not possess qualification required for appointment on the post of Associate Professor and hence, to that extent, the direction given by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) no. 2361 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. ;