Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Aseem Kumar Thakur S/o Late Kameshwar Thakur – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10224 of 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2024
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed provisionally as Principal of a Polytechnic College but was later declared ineligible by the Bihar Public Service Commission for a Principal position in Government Engineering Colleges due to alleged inadequate experience. The petitioner contended that he met the experience requirements as per the advertisement and sought to quash the rejection of his candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had sufficient experience equivalent to that of a Professor in the required pay scale at the time of application. The refusal to issue an experience certificate was deemed arbitrary and unjustified, as the petitioner had been granted the post of Principal with effect from 02.07.2015.
Issues: Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite experience for the post of Principal as per the advertisement criteria, and whether the refusal to issue an experience certificate was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had more than three years of experience at the required level by the time of the advertisement. The refusal to issue the experience certificate was not justified, and the petitioner was entitled to have his experience recognized.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned letter refusing the experience certificate and directed the issuance of the certificate, allowing the petitioner to be considered for the vacant Principal positions in accordance with the advertisement.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. By notification, dated 05.06.2018, the petitioner was appointed provisionally as the Principal, Polytechnic College, with effect from 02.07.2015 on the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 – 67,000/-plus A.G.P. Rs. 10,000/-and special allowance of Rs. 2,000/-(Level 14), issued by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared ineligible candidate by the Bihar Public Service Commission in the selection process, conducted by it for the post of Principal of Engineering Colleges, which was advertised, vide Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, dated 06.08.2020.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has erroneously been denied appointment and his candidature has wrongfully been rejected despite the fact that the petitioner was having adequate experience of more than three years in the requisite pay scale of Principal, i.e. equivalent to the Professor with effect from 02.07.2015.
4. In the aforesaid background the petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner submitted pursuant to the Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, dated 06.08.2020, for the post of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges, under the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, as the petitioner fulfills all the criteria and experience for the post advertised. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Letter No. 1508, dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure 7) of the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the respondents refused to issue experience certificate since 02.07.2015.
5. The brief facts of the case is that the Bihar Public Service Commission published Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, dated 06.08.2020, inviting online applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 32 posts of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges in the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar.
6. The petitioner applied for the post of Principal and submitted online application on 02.09.2020. At the time of submission of his online application form, the petitioner was working as Principal, Kameshwar Narayan Singh Government Polytechnic College, Samastipur, and after having obtained permission from the Department, he duly applied for the advertised post of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges.
7. Earlier, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Principal in Polytechnic College, the petitioner had applied and participated in the selection process. After the selection process was over, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not working against a post having AGP of Rs. 9,000/-, as Head of the Department.
8. The petitioner had moved before this Court challenging the rejection of his candidature on the post of Principal, Polytechnic College and at the stage of letters patent appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016, the petitioner succeeded and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 19.07.2017, held that the appellant (petitioner herein) shall be deemed to be holding the post as Head of the Department with AGP of Rs. 9,000/-with effect from 17.10.2011 and in rejecting his claim by holding that the appellant/petitioner did not fulfill the requisite criteria, the Division Bench held that the respondents have committed an error in this regard inasmuch as while considering the claim of the eligible candidates, the appellant’s case has been left out on account of improper consideration.
9. In compliance of the order, dated 19.07.2017, passed in LPA No. 655 of 2016, the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, issued Office Order No. 1397, dated 05.06.2018, by which on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, dated 01.11.2017, the petitioner was provisionally a
The court established that a candidate's experience must be recognized as per the terms of prior court orders and that arbitrary denial of experience certificates undermines the principles of fairnes....
The court held that procedural strictness in recruitment must be balanced with fairness, allowing exceptions for valid experience certificates issued by authorized personnel even if not counter signe....
Teaching experience certified by government school Principal qualifies for recruitment marks despite unauthorized PTA/SMC appointment; equity protects selected candidate's regularized service while g....
The court ruled that altering eligibility criteria during a recruitment process violates principles of fairness, and candidates cannot retroactively challenge such conditions once participated in sel....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
