ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the department of Science and Technology. On 14.05.2018, this Court has passed specific order noticing the injustice done to these petitioners, the Court asked the department to either provide job to the petitioners on the basis of the recommendation of the BPSC or to compassionate the petitioner by granting compensation. This Court granted further indulgence to the respondents on 26.08.2019 and on 06.09.2019 for ready reference the order dated 26.08.2019 and 06.09.2019 is quoted below.

“Put up this case on 06.09.2019 under the heading ‘For Orders’ to enable the department of Science and Technology to inform the Court how the department proposes to do justice with the petitioner in the background of the fact that the B.P.S.C. has recommended the case of the petitioner after clearance by the Department of Science and Technology as to eligibility of the petitioner. The department has to either provide job to the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the BPSC or compensate the petitioner by awarding compensation which according to this Court cannot be less than five crores in the given facts of the case.”

“As a matter of last indulgence, on the request of the respondents, the case is adjourned to 30th September, 2019 to enable the Department to either take final decision on the appointment of the petitioners or to compensate them by paying compensation of Rs.5/- crores.”

3. After the order of this court on 06.09.2019, the department of Science and Technology filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 09.09.2019. In the supplementary counter affidavit department has taken the stand that neither the department is inclined to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment nor the department is ready to compassionate the petitioners, which reflects the close mind set of the respondent Science and Technology department. The relevant part of the supplementary counter affidavit paragraphs 6 to 23 is quoted below:—

“6. That the present answering respondent had categorically replied each and every points raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition through a counter affidavit filed vide oath no. 31759 dated 19.06.2019.

7. That in response to order and direction passed by this Hon’ble court dated 26.08.2019, it is necessary to explain some relevant material facts before this Hon’ble court for complete adjudication of this case.

8. That the present writ petitioner has been filed for seeking direction for quashing order bearing Memo No. 955 dated 11.04.2018 whereby and whereunder it was held that educational qualification of the petitioners were not in accordance with Departmental requisitions and therefore they were declared ineligible for appointment and further for direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners eligible for appointment against the post of Assistant Profession in Mechanical Engineering.

9. That the petitioner no. 1 is B.Tech, in Manufacturing Engineering, petitioner no. 2 is B. Tech, in Automatable Engineering and petitioner no. 3 is M. Tech. in Alternate Hydro Energy System.

10. That the all Indian Council for Technical Education is regulatory authority for institution imparting Technical Education under provisions of AICTE Act, 1987. As such AICTE prescribes qualifications for the Teaching post of Engineering Colleges.

11. That on the basis of qualification prescribed by AICTE vide regulation, 2010 and accepted by the State Government requisition was sent to Bihar Public Service Commission to appoint Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering vide letter No. 1156 dated 07.05.2014. That the required qualification for the post in question was mentioned in para 18(a) of the requisition, which is being reproduced here below:-

“B.E./B. Tech. And M.E./ M. Tech. In Mechanical Engineering/Technology with 1st class or equivalent either in B.E/ B. Tech. Or M.