MC 3607/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent No. 4). Also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respon dent (writ petitioner). The official respondents are represented by Mr. M.K. Cho udhury, learned Senior Counsel. The Principal of the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati is represented by Mr. U.R. Saikia, learned counsel. 2. This application is filed for recall of the interim order dated 20.8.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 4672/2010, whereby the recommendation for promotio n given in favour of the applicant (respondent No.4) to the post of Professor in Civil Engineering in the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati (hereinafter refer red to as the Engineering College ), was kept in abeyance. The said interim ord er was considered by the Court by accepting the contention advanced by the writ petitioner that the post of Professor is identifiable with the discipline Water shed Management and Flood Control and consideration of the applicant belonging to a different discipline (wrongly recorded as different department) i.e. Compu ter Aided Design and Earthquake Engineering was impermissible. 3.1 Seeking recall of the interim order, Mr. S. Saikia, learned coun sel contends that the post of Professor in the Engineering College is to be fill ed up on the basis of the norms and procedure prescribed under the Assam Technic al Education Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and no f iner distinction in the subject of Civil Engineering is incorporated in the Rule s and the applicant is very much eligible for promotion to the post of Professor . 3.2 It is further contended that the basis on which the Court passed the interim order was not in consonance with the norms prescribed for promotion under the Rules and accordingly the interim order is required to be recalled in the present case. 4. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Edu cation Department submits that the Court’s interim order is adversely impacting the interest of the students as only 5 posts of Professor are sanctioned in the Engineering College and since the posts in question has remained vacant since Ma rch 2009, recommended promotion should be permitted to be effected. The learned counsel appearing for the Principal also make submissions for recall of the inte rim order. 5.1 From the Rules in force, it can be inferred that the cadre of Pr ofessor is distinguished by the subject of each branch and each branch constitut e a separate cadre. Under Schedule-I of the Rules, the different discipline in the branches are indicated as Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical etc. for t he Engineering College. 5.2 Promotion to the cadre of Professor are made under Rule 12 and i t is to be made on the basis of merit as per Rule 13(4) of the Rules. The eligib ility for promotion are set forth in Schedule-II of the Rules. 5.3 In Schedule-II the qualification and experience for promotion by selection is prescribed and for the post of Professor, First Class Master Degre e/Doctorate Degree in appropriate field with minimum 7 to 10 years of experience in teaching is prescribed as essential qualification. 5.4 The recommendation made by the All India Council of Technical Ed ucation (hereinafter referred to as the AICTE) prescribing revised qualification for teaching faculty in Engineering Colleges was adopted by the State through O ffice Memorandum dated 6.8.2007 and by a Gazette Notification dated 21st July, 2008. The AICTEs revised norms were incorporated in the Service Rules in the yea r 2008, whereby the recommendation made in the Office Memorandum dated 6.8.2007 have been incorporated as part of the qualification criteria in Schedule-II of t he Rules. 5.5 The qualification and experience prescribed by the AICTE circula r now incorporated in the Rules, inter alia, prescribes for a Ph.D qualification with a First Class Degree at Bachelors or Master’s level in the appropriate bra nch of engineering, with 10 years experience in teaching, out of which 5 years m ust be at the level of Assistant Professor. 6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner as well as the res pondent No.4 and a third candidate were considered eligible for promotion and ac cordingly 3 candidates were being considered by the Selection Committee in their proceeding held on 21.7.2010, whereafter recommendation was made in favour of t he applicant (respondent No.4). 7.1 The writ petitioner claims that the post of Professor for which the promotion was being considered was created for introduction of Post Graduate (P.G.) courses in the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati in the year 1976 and since Watershed Management and Flood Control is one of the 2 P.G. Courses off ered in the college, an Assistant Professor with the specialized qualification i n Watershed Management and Flood Control at the Master’s Degree level should be considered to be the sole eligible candidate, for promotion to the concerned vacancy. 7.2 It is also contended by the writ petitioner on the basis of the communication of the Principal dated 19.6.2010 in response to a query under the RTI Act made by Shri Ramani Kanta Deka, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner , that the vacant post of Professor is required to be filled up with a candidate with specialization in Watershed Management and Flood Control . 8. I have considered the submissions made by the rival counsels and have also examined the provisions of the Rules prescribing the criteria for pro motion to the post of Professor in the Engineering Colleges. The clarification g iven by the Principal on 23.9.2010 in respect of the earlier information furnish ed under the RTI Act have also been noted. More importantly, the changes incorpo rated in the year 2008 by amendment of the Rules, in pursuant to the revised qua lification prescribed by the AICTE have also been considered. 9. It is seen from the communication dated 16.10.1976 that a post o f Professor in the branch of Civil Engineering was created in the College and it was not indicated in the said Notification that the post has been created for a specialized field within the Civil Engineering Branch. More significantly after creation of the post in the year 1976, no consequential change in the Rules hav e been incorporated to show that the newly created post of Professor is earmarke d for a candidate having specialization in Watershed Management and Flood Contr ol . Consequently it is clearly discernible that the creation of the post of Pr ofessor was to augment the strength in the cadre of Professor in the college and the argued objective of inducting person with specialized knowledge in a field of Civil Engineering in the created post, is not perceived in the acts of the re spondents. In any event, the prescription in the Rules must prevail and submiss ion made to the contrary can’t be accepted. 10. In the above circumstances, I am of the prima facie view that th e choice of candidates to fill up the post of Professor cannot be restricted to an Assistant Professor with Master Degree in Watershed Management and Flood Con trol and a qualified person in the branch of Civil Engineering as per the revi sed qualification of the AICTE read with the Schedule-II of the Rules as amended , is also eligible to be considered for the post of Professor. 11. In this case after considering the candidature of 3 Assistant Pr ofessors, the Selection Committee has made recommendation in favour of the appli cant (respondent No.4). Accordingly considering the requirement of a functioning Professor in the Engineering College, I am inclined to recall the interim order to facilitate appointment of the recommended candidate in the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati. However if recommendation is accepted and promotion is given , the same is made subject to the final result of the writ petition. 12. The Misc. Case stands allowed accordingly.