IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5870 of 2010 1. Amitabh Ghosh S/O Sri Murli Dhar Ghosh R/O Quarter No.- A/12 (LIG), Ashiana Nagar, P.S.- Shastrinagar, Town & Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Science & Technology Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Science & Technology Department Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Science & Technology Department Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Human Resource Development Department Of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001 5. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman 15, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 6. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 7. The All India Council For Technical Education, Through Its Advisor Faculty Development, New Delhi ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee. For the State : Mr. Vijay Shankar Choubey, AC to SC 8. For the BPSC : M/S. K K Jha and Amish Kumar. ______ 04. 13 /07/2011 Petitioner is stated to be holding substantive post of Professor in Physics Department in Bhagalpur College of Engineering. At the time of filing of the writ application he was also stated to be on deputation with Bihar Council of Science & Technology. According to the petitioner, he is a Ph.D. from I.I.T. Delhi in Physics and came to be appointed initially on the post of a Lecturer in R D S College, Salmari, in the district of Katihar. Rest of the narration with regard to achievement of the petitioner has no relevance in the background to the issue, which primarily is required to be adjudicated in this writ. A requisition had been sent by the Department of Science & Technology to Bihar Public Service Commission 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the BPSC) for appointment on the post of Principals in the various Engineering Colleges under the State. Since the earlier parameters were sent as far back as on 24.7.2006 as well as on 25.11.2008, the Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology wrote a letter to the Secretary of BPSC on 19.2.2010. The letter to the Secretary contained in Anneuxre-1, which is also under challenge in the present writ, indicates that in the earlier two letters by omission some vital requirements were left to be incorporated, which is being pointed out by the Department for incorporation or corrigendum, which may be required to be issued by the BPSC. The requirement indicated in Annexure-1 is as follows: “UPARYUKT ENGINEERING / TECHNOLOGY ME PRATHAM SHRENI KA ASNATAK UPADHI KE SATH P.H.D. KI UPADHI SAHIT 10 BARSHO KA SHAIKSHNIK / AUDYOGIK / SHODH KA ANUBHAV, JISME SE 5 BARSHO KA ANUBHAV SAHAYAK PRADHYAPAK YA SAHAYAK PRADHYAPAK KE SAMTULYA ASTAR KA HO. ESKE ATIRIKTA ABHYARTHI KO APNE KSHETRA ME PRAKHYATI PRAPT HONE KE SATH 15 BARSHO KA SHAIKSHNIK / AUDYOGIK /SHODH KA ANUBHAV JISME 5 BARSHO KA ANUBHAV PRADHYAPAK KA ATHWA USASE UCHCHA ASTAR KA HO” AKHIL BHARTIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHA PARISHAD (ABHATSHIP) KE PATRANK – 3 F.No.FD/PSSC/Notification/2002/1 Dated- 19-02- 2003 (SANLAGNA) ME ULLIKHIT PRACHARYA PAD KE LIYE PRADHYAPAK PAD KI SHAIKSHNIK YOGYATA HONI CHAHIYE. ESKE ATIRIKTA ANUBHAV KE RUP ME, ABHYARTHI KO APNE KSHETRA ME PRAKHYATI PRAPT HONE KE SATH 15 BARSHO KA SHAIKSHNIK / AUDYOGIK / SHODH KA ANUBHAV JISME SE 5 BARSHO KA ANUBHAV PRADHYAPAK KA ATHWA USASE UCHCHA ASTAR KA HO. UPARYUKTA PATRA KE ANUSAR PRADHYAPAK KE LIYE SHAIKSHNIK YOGYATA P.H.D. UPADHI KE SATH ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY ME ASNATAK ME PRATHAM SHRENI KA HONA AABASYAK HAI.” When the letter was issued petitioner apprehended that this is being deliberately done to oust the petitioner from the zone of consideration by laying down new requirements by insisting on degrees in „Engineering and Technology‟. The hunch of the petitioner, it seems, turned down to be correct because during the pendency of the writ application, a letter of the BPSC addressed to the petitioner indicated that he did not have requisite educational qualification, therefore, the application would not be accepted. This communication has been annexed as Annexure-15 with I.A. No.1212 of 2011 and quashing is sought of this letter as well. I.A. No. 1212 of 2011 stands allowed. Yet another I.A. filed on behalf of the petitioner is 4 I.A. No. 1951 of 2011 which wanted amendment to the writ application by adding some more prayers including issuance of a direction for sending fresh requisition as well as to accept the application of the petitioner by quashing the rejection order. I.A. No. 1951 of 2011 is allowed. Effort has been made on behalf of the petitioner to demonstrate that the developments which are sought to be incorporated for the selection on the post of Principal may not be strictly in accordance with the guidelines of All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) because some clarifications have been issued by them to say that the words “Engineering and Technology” should not be given a very strict interpretation to oust people having qualifications in science streams like the petitioner. The stand of the respondents as per their counter affidavit is that the letter of AICTE dated 19.2.2003, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application, clearly mentions the qualification for the post of a Principal in Engineering College. Abstract of that notification has been reproduced in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. The requisition sent by the Government is based on such a guideline and the qualification fixed by AICTE where insistence on qualification in the branch of Engineering and Technology has been insisted upon. For, after all the appointments are to be made in Engineering College and they require specialist in 5 the subjects and not persons from the general stream as the petitioner is. The decision or the clarification communicated to the BPSC is in furtherance to the standards laid down by AICTE in their letter dated 19.2.2003. The effort of the petitioner to rely on some earlier letters and to give interpretation to dilute the standards ought not to be accepted. Court has gone through the terms and conditions contained in the AICTE‟s letter of 2003 where qualification on the post of Principal required is in the stream of Engineering and Technology. Since the State Government is bound by the standards set up by the apex body controlling technical education, any deviation in matter of appointment would create many an impediments for the State Government. The Court is not impressed by the submissions made at the bar on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the decision of the State being in any manner arbitrary or in violation of any statutory provision or guidelines. What is being urged would amount to giving an interpretation to the set of pre- conditions on the question of educational qualifications, which have been notified without any ambiguity on this count. Even otherwise, the employer knows best as to what he is looking for in matter of selection and appointment to a post and the Courts to that extent do not have much of a leeway by intervening or giving directions either to do or to desist. In the present case, however, this aspect or the stand 6 of the State cannot be overlooked that in 2003 communication of AICTE, the standards laid down are available in the guidelines and the appointments have to be made from people having the requisite qualification in engineering/technology. It is not to belittle the achievement of the petitioner and his qualifications but whether his qualifications including that of the Ph.D. in Physics can be read and brought under the ambit of „Engineering and Technology‟ is doubtful. Both the words have connotations and widely understood as to what engineering or technology means. But analogy cannot be utilized to allow persons like the petitioner to come within the ambit of consideration or the terms and conditions of advertisement issued by the BPSC for the post of Principal of Engineering College. The Court therefore does feel that there is nothing extraneous in the clarifications which have been issued by the Deputy Secretary addressed to the BPSC in its communication contained in Annexure-1 nor have the BPSC committed any error or created prejudice against the petitioner by rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that it does not have the requisite qualification required for such appointment. Writ has no merit and it is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)