Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 860

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh - Appellant)
Versus
The State Of Bihar And Others – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7257 of 2023] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8967 of 2023] CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10359 of 2023] CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18369 of 2023] CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22215 of 2023]
Decided on : 04-10-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yash Raj Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Anant Sangal, Adv. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv

Important Point – Appointment – Introducing new requirements into selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing rules of game after game was played which is not permissible.

Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Junior Engineer (Civil) – Introducing new requirements into selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing rules of game after game was played – Presently, despite preparation of Final Select List which signals conclusion of appointment process, State Government seeks to scrap entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under New Rules – This amounts to effectively changing rules of game after game was played which is impermissible and deprives candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under previous Rules – State action of scrapping entire selection process is not permissible – Since, entire recruitment process was concluded as per extant Rules till selection list was declared, which has not been specifically set aside by High Court, interest of justice would be met if State/Commission is directed to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates in respect of Advertisement – BTSC directed to prepare Revised Select List within 3 months of this Order and State Government directed to act upon Revised Select List submitted by Commission within a period of 30 days thereafter. [Rule 9(1)(iii) of Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015] (Paras 26, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Writ Petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates in Recruitment Process conducted pursuant to Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), had challenged vires of Rule 9(1)(ii) of Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017, published vide notification dated 07.11.2017, prescribing technical qualification eligibility for selection/appointment to technical post in State of Bihar. Appellants before this Court are successful candidates in Recruitment Process.
Findings of Court:
In view of peculiar circumstances of this case, particularly prolonged pendency leading to huge number of vacant posts that hinder Government’s functioning, this Court finds it appropriate for State/BTSC to proceed with the Fresh Select List submitted in compliance with order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 which has attained finality, as also taking into consideration as far as possible, interest of candidates who were found successful.
Result – Appeals disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present batch of appeals arise out of judgement dated 16.02.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3411/2022 (‘CWJC’) along with other connected matters (the ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the Writ Petitioners who were the unsuccessful candidates in the Recruitment Process conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), had challenged the vires of Rule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017, published vide notification dated 07.11.2017, prescribing technical qualification eligibility for selection/appointment to the technical post in the State of Bihar. The appellants before this Court are the successful candidates in the said Recruitment Process.

3. The present matter begins with the issuance of Advertisement No. 01/2019 dated 08.03.2019 by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (‘BTSC’) inviting applications for 6,379 vacancies to the post of Junior Engineer across various state departments (the ‘Advertisement’). The Advertisement specified that the educational qualification required for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as under:

a) Junior Engineer (Civil)

i. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering conferred by the concerned Technical Educational Council/University recognised by All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi.

ii. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering through non-distance mode conferred by the concerned Deemed University established under the UGC Act provided the Deemed University is duly approved by the University Grants Commission for the said Course.”

It is pertinent to note that this requirement is drawn from and is identical to Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (the ‘Rules’) as amended in 2017.

4. The private Respondents in the present appeal were the Writ Petitioners before the High Court. They were all applicants who possessed a Diploma from Private Universities/Institutions established by statute and approved by the University Grants Commission. Their applications were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground that their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council of Technical Education (‘AICTE’). Aggrieved, they approached the High Court seeking the quashing of Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Rules as being inconsistent with other statutory provisions and judgement of the Apex Court in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 676 wherein, on an interpretation of the provisions of the All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987, it was held that Universities are excluded from the purview of technical institutions and are thus not required to obtain approvals from the AICTE before introducing technical courses/programs.

5. The Writ Petitioners relied on public notice dated 09.02.2022 issued by the AICTE, to the VCs of all Central/State and Private Universities about AICTE approval for 2022-23, stating as follows:

It is intimated that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bharathidasan University & Another Vs AICTE & Others has interpreted the provisions of the AICTE Act and has held that university do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new department of course and programmes in technical education.

Universities have obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE. For the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards, AICTE may cause an inspection of the university, which has to be as per the provisions under relevant rules/regulations of the AICTE. Further, all affiliated institutions running technical education programmes requires prior approval of AICTE.

However, it has been observed that some of the Central / State / Pr