JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (in short the Commission) has chosen to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22-11-2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 7828 of 2020, directing the Commission to reconsider the eligibility of Respondent No. 1 for recommending him for appointment to the post of Lab Technician within a time-frame provided by the Court.

3. The Respondent No. 1 had applied against an advertisement published by the Commission, but was held to be not qualified enough for being considered. The reason for the same was that the Respondent No. 1 had obtained Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician course from the College of Commerce, Magadh University, which is not in the list of recognized institutions for the qualification to be considered for such recommendation.

4. The learned Single Judge has referred to the Bihar Laboratory Technician Cadre Rules, 2014 (in short the Rules of 2014).

5. Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2014 provide for the recruitment process and the minimum qualification, namely, I.Sc./10+2 (Biology), along with Diploma course of Lab Technician from a government recognized institution.

6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules of 2014, the Rules having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Commission to shut out Respondent No. 1 from being considered was found to be faulty.

7. The appeal by the Commission has been premised on the ground that only one body of Rules has been examined by the learned Single Judge, leaving aside another set of Rules applicable in the circumstance framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India of the year 2005, viz., Bihar Para Medical and Para Dental Educational (Permission for Establishment of Institutions) Rules, 2005 (the Rules of 2005).

8. It has been submitted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti, the learned Advocate for the appellants/Commission that the Rules of 2014, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, is only limited to the constitution of the Cadre and the basic minimum qualification for recruitment, whereas the Rules of 2005, referred to above, which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, deals with establishment of institutions to impart Diploma in various branches of Para Medical Sciences including various Disciplines noted in the Act only.

9. The Rules of 2005 prohibit establishment and control of any Para Medical/Para Dental Educational Institutions against the provisions of the Rules framed therein. Thus, only such institutions stand recognized by the government which are in consonance with the Rules framed with respect to the infrastructure, the faculty and other necessary factors to be taken into account for running an institution for rendering Para Medical learning in various Disciplines.

10. With respect to the candidature of respondent No. 1, the objection of the Commission is that the College of Commerce under the Magadh University may be a recognized College of the University in the State of Bihar, but the course offered by the College in Laboratory Technology is of a lesser duration of one year and such course in the College is not included in the list of recognized institutions.

11. The afore-noted objection was sought to be repelled by Ms. Shama Sinha, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 by referring to Section 34 of the Rules of 2005, which provides that in case the norms/the courses of study or any other terms/conditions have already been laid down by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India/Pharmacology Council of India/Rehabilitation Council of India or any other Central Council for any course, then in the matter of those courses of study, the provisions of the concerned council shall prevail and the provisions of the Rules (2005) shall be deemed to be relaxed up-to that extent.

12. It was pointed out by Respondent No. 1 that the course in the Co