The AICTE's clarifications dictate promotion qualifications; retrospective qualifications cannot be enforced by the State, ensuring rights of consistently employed individuals are protected.

JUDGMENT :

Purnendu Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, learned AC to GA-5 for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1.(a) That the above named petitioners are filing the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the memo no. 497 dated 10.02.2021 issued by Respondent No.3 (Joint Director, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna) by which petitioner has not been found fit for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) on the ground that petitioner does not possess Ph.D. degree which is essential in view of clause 3.5 of memo no. 02 dated 02.01.2003 issued by Department of Finance and clause 43 of notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by AICTE.

1.(b) That the abovenamed petitioners are further praying before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing/commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner his due promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 25.02.2001) under Career Advancement Scheme with all consequential benefits in view of Item-10 of the clarification issued by AICTE as contained in letter no. FD/PSSC/clarify/2003/1 dated 10.09.2003 and as has been held in order dated 24.01.2017 passed in MJC No. 1438 of 2015.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved for having not been promoted on the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 08.03.2002 the date he became entitled after completion of five years from 08.03.1997 on which date he was granted Lecturer (Senior Scale).

4. The Finance Department, Government of Bihar came out with a Notification dated 02.01.2003. The said notification was clarified by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in respect of Item No.10 by a clarificatory notification dated 10.09.2003 giving retrospective effect to the notification dated 02.01.2003. In respect of the clarification, learned senior counsel submitted that a writ petition was filed by Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and others and against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, said Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh preferred L.P.A. No. 720 of 2006 before this Court and against the final judgment passed by the Division Bench, said Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and others preferred MJC No. 1438 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2017 had noticed the clarificatory notification dated 10.09.2003 issued by the AICTE made in respect of Item No. 10, particularly Sub Clause 3.5(ii) of the Notification dated 02.01.2003. Learned counsel placed reliance on the said clarification made by the Division Bench in its order passed in M.J.C. No. 1438 of 2015 dated 24.01.2017. In the background of the admitted position, learned counsel contended that the petitioner became entitled for Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 08.03.2002 keeping in view Kalavadhi of five years as stipulated in the said Notification. The petitioner having not been paid the required pay scale applicable for Lecturer (Selection Grade) was forced to file C.W.J.C. No. 16508 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the respondent no.2 to be cons