Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013 --- 1. Amar Prakash Singh 2. Imteyaz Ahmad --- --- ---- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Science and Technology, Government of Jharkhand 2. Addition Secretary, Science and Technology,Government of Jharkhand 3. Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology, Government of Jharkhand 4. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi 5. Director, B.I.T., Sindri, Dhanbad 6. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) through its Secretary --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: M/ R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Vaibhav Kumar, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, SC-III For the Resp-JPSC: Mr. Rajesh Shankar and Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocates For the Resp-BIT: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate --- 06/ 26.08.2015 Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners who were serving as Lecturer in Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri, applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering under the Advertisement No. 08/2007 dated 22.06.2007 issued by the JPSC, corrigendum of which was also issued on 28.07.2007. The relevant educational criteria to be satisfied for applying for the said post was first class degree in Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering in technical subject with five years experience in Teaching / Industry / Research at the level of Lecturer or equivalent with condition that the said candidate should obtain Ph.D qualification within seven years from the date of appointment as an Assistant Professor. Petitioners participated and were successful in the recruitment exercise. JPSC made a recommendation in their favour to the respondent Department of Science and Technology vide Annexure-4 dated 02.12.2011. Documents were verified by the respondent Department. However, development took place before the actual appointment letters could be issued.
3. The All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred as 'AICTE') adopted 6th Pay Commission and has also not only changed the pay structure of the teaching cadre in Technical Institutions, but also changed the 2. designation of the teaching post. This was done through Notification dated 05.03.2010 (Annexure-6). The State Government adopted the AICTE norms by a Resolution dated 31.03.2012 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). The change in qualification for the post of Assistant Professor brought-forth by the AICTE Notification and its adoption by the State Government were that a person has to have Ph.D qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Professor. This became the reason for refusal of appointment to the petitioners./ 4. They have come before this Court seeking direction upon the respondents to appoint them on the post of Assistant Professor which is now declared to be equivalent to the Associate Professor under 6th Pay Commission adopted by the AICTE for Telecom Engineering Department at B.I.T., Sindri.
5. The issue on hand need not detain any further, so far as the question relating to non-consideration of the petitioners' case for appointment by the respondents on the ground of change in eligibility criteria is concerned, as this stands determined by a judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department & others) in WPS No. 1051/2013 dated 21.10.2013 as upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 151/2014 dated 16.06.2015. It has been held therein that the rules of the game, as existing on the cut-off date under the advertisement in question, cannot be changed in view of change in qualification laid down by the AICTE, as adopted by the respondent Department. The change in qualification could operate prospectively as there is no implicit or explicit intent to make it retrospective applicable. As a result, direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the said petitioner for the purposes of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, has been upheld. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. The respondent Department and the Institution are required to consider the case of the present petitioners also and issue appointment letters on the post of 3. Assistant Professor.
6. The issue which has relevance and requires to be addressed while finally disposing of the matter is, whether petitioners could be entitled to be appointed on the post of Associate Professor instead of Assistant Professor in view of change in designation brought about by the AICTE, as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand on 31.03.2012. If petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Professor under the said Advertisement, fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down therein and as held by the learned Division Bench, rules of the game could not have been changed to deny appointment to such a person on succeeding in the recruitment process, petitioners can have a legal right to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor on which they had applied as per qualification laid down therein. However, if qualification has been changed during the process of recruitment in view of AICTE Notification, as has also been considered by the learned Division Bench relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Mithilesh Kumar [(2010) 13 SCC467, such change in qualification, pay structure, etc. could apply prospectively. Therefore, for being appointed as Associate Professor, a person is required to qualify the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Professor as implemented prospectively in view of AICTE norms laid down which apply uniformly throughout the country in all Technical Institutions. Therefore, the present petitioners' case could only be considered for being designated as Associate Professor if they satisfy the aforesaid criteria in terms of the changed qualification.
7. With the aforesaid rider therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Mithilesh Kumar (Supra) in LPA No. 151/2014. Respondents would consider and grant appointment to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/