IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1442 of 2011 Dr. Ravi Kant Jha , son of late Shaligram Jha, resident of village – Hansour, P.S. Belsand, District – Sitamarhi ________ Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The Director, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. 6. Incharge Section Officer, Direct Recruitment Section, BPSC, Patna. _______ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kumar. For the State : Mr. A Amanullah, G.A. 4. For the BPSC : Mr. P N Shahi and Mr. Sanjay Pandey. ______ 04. 13/07/2011 The communication dated 30.12.2010 contained in Annexure-6 issued by the BPSC to the petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Issue was appointment on the post of Principal of Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar. Application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he does not have the requisite experience, which is being seriously contested by the petitioner. From the materials which have been brought on record, it is evident that the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner is because of non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The advertisement does lay down that experience as a part time lecturer appointed on contract basis will not be counted for experience while considering the eligibility of a candidate for appointment on the 2 post of a Principal. The experience furnished by the petitioner in no manner fulfills the requirement shown in the advertisement. It includes experience as a part time lecturer, surveyor or loss assessor and some training he has obtained from Engineering Research Centre. Details of the experience of the petitioner has been reproduced in para 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BPSC. If the experience of the petitioner is assessed in the background of the advertisement then the stand of the respondents seems to be correct that the petitioner does not have the experience which is required for appointment on the post of a Principal for Engineering College. Petitioner turns around and challenges the terms and conditions of the advertisement to be arbitrary because all counts of experience should have been permitted to be considered in such selection. A separate clause cannot be created. Objection raised on behalf of the respondent BPSC is that the terms of the advertisement was never questioned by the petitioner earlier. It is only after his rejection that he has turned around and filed the writ application terming it to be arbitrary and therefore, it may not be possible for the petitioner to assail the terms and conditions of the advertisement now. Court has gone through the advertisement and the requirements which have been laid down by the respondent 3 BPSC. They are based on the parameters or guidelines issued by the AICTE and nothing has been done by the respondent State or the BPSC, which can be labeled as arbitrary as parameters of such appointments to that extent are pre-fixed and if a person does not come within the ambit of the requirement or fulfils the conditions of the advertisement, then proxy challenge to the terms of the advertisement after rejection of the application by a candidate ought not to be encouraged. The requirements whether educational or experience wise are in accordance with the direction of a technical body, which govern and regulate the standards of technical education in the country as well as lays down such parameters. If it ousts candidates like the petitioner, then there is an object and purpose behind it. Obviously, the respondents are not looking for any kind of experience in any capacity to select a person and post him as Principal in an Engineering College. Since there is no dispute with regard to the kind of experience, which the petitioner had and the petitioner never happened to have worked on the post of a Lecturer in a substantive capacity, reasons did exist for rejection of his application by the BPSC. Writ therefore has no merit and requires no interference with the decision. It is accordingly dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)