Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against a resolution of the State of Bihar in the Department of Science and Technology as contained in Memo No.153 dated 21-2-1992 as also the order contained in Memo no.392 dated 13-3-1992 whereby and whereunder Rajendra Pd. Singh (Respondent No.4) has been given the charge of the Principal, Magadh engineering College, Gaya. 2. The petitioner is allegedly presently holding the post of Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering-cum-Principal Incharge, in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya. By an Ordinance, known as bihar Private Engineering College (Taking Over of Management and control) Ordinance 1986 being Ordinance No.37 of 1986 promulgated on 9-12-1986, the State Government took over the Management and control of three private Engineering Colleges including Magadh Engineering coliege, Gaya, 3. Allegedly, in terms of Sec.5 of the said Ordinance a committee was constituted for the purpose of screening of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the aforementioned institution, Allegedly, the committee adopted the model of staffing pattern or B. I. T. , Sindri. By a notification dated 31-1-1991 the services of the teaching staff were taken over on ad hoc basis by the State of Bihar. According to the petitioner, he has been working in the Mechanical Engineering Department whereas the Respondent No.4 has been working in the Physics Department. 4. The petitioner has contended that as in the institute is a Technical institution, whenever the Director went on leave he used to hand over all the administrative assignments to the petitioner. The petitioner claim himself to be the seniormost amongst the technical teachers having joined on 21-9-1983. According to him, although, Respondent No.4 joined on 21-6-1982, he does not possess the qualification in Engineering or technical subject and thus he could not be appointed to work to principal-in-charge of the said College. 5. The Respondent No.4 however, was asked to officiate as Principal by an order dated 9-12-1990. The matter was allegedly brought to the notice of the State Government and the said order was revised by an order dated 20th February, 1991, whereby the petitioner was asked to take over charge of the office of the Principal. 6. A writ petition was filed by Respondent No.4 being C. W. J. C. No.1366 of 1991 wherein an interim order dated 6-3-1991 was passed. 6. A writ petition was filed by Respondent No.4 being C. W. J. C. No.1366 of 1991 wherein an interim order dated 6-3-1991 was passed. The petitioner appeared in the aforementioned writ application and filed an application for vacating the order of stay and by an order dated 18-3-1991 the said interim order dated 6-3-1991 was vacated. 7. The petitioner also filed a writ application being CWJC No.237 of 1991 against the aforementioned order dated 29-12-1990 but the said writ application was withdrawn. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of the recommendations of All India Council of Technical Education (A. I. C. T. E. in short) which was constituted in terms of the provisions of the All India council of Technical Education, 1987, a scheme was prepared by the central Government whereby and whereunder, inter alia, the qualification and experience for holding the post was laid down and which reads as follows : 8_780_BLJ1_1994.htm 9. The contentions of the petitioner, inter alia in short is that for the post of Principal/director, the qualification under the essential head is an eminent Educationist/scientist/technologist. It is stated that in some of the Engineering Colleges where Science or Humanities are taught as Service subjects. It has been stated and submitted that the state Government has merely accepted a part of the aforesaid recommendations of the a. I. C T. E. The petitioner has, therefore, contended that while issuing letter dated 16-3-1990 issued in favour of the Secretary, Bihar Public Service commission, Patna, the criteria laid down by A. I. C. T. E. was not followed. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to item No.4 of the enclosure of the said letter which reads thus : 9_780_BLJ1_1994.htm 10. It has been contended that the State of Bihar could not have given a go-by to the aforesaid directives of A. I. C. T. E. in the matter of possession of a degree in the subject of engineering for technical discipline as qualification and appoint the Respondent No.4 is breach thereof. It is stated that the State of Bihar thereafter constituted an expert Committee in terms of its resolution dated 4-3-1993. It is stated that the State of Bihar thereafter constituted an expert Committee in terms of its resolution dated 4-3-1993. It is contended that from Annexure 15 to the Supplementary Affidavit it would appear that the said committee considered the entire matter and also resolved that every appointment on the post of Principal/director of the Enginering Colleges should be made from the cadre of Engineering Faculty for providing better education to the engineering students A copy of the said resolution dated 23-3-1993 has been annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit. By way of example it has been stated that even in the Polytechnic Colleges in Bihar, the State of bihar has adopted a resolution in terms thereof that only teachers adopted a resolution in terms thereof that only teachers of Engineering faculties can be appointed as Principal. A copy of the said resolution dated 24-3-1993 is contained in Annexure 16 to the supplementary affidavit. 11. In the contempt matter it has been stated that the order of status-quo was passed in the writ application on 5-4-1992 but despite the fact that the petitioner only wanted bis salary as an Assistant Professor and despite the fact that an order to that effect had been passed on 8-5-1993, upon an enquiry made in that regard no salary has been paid to the petitioner. 12. The contention of Respondent No.4, on the other hand, is that from a perusal of letter dated 20th February, 1993 issued by the Government of India to the Secretaries dealing with Technical Education of all the States/union territories, itself it would appear that the following recommendations were made : - "candidates from Industry/profession with recognised professional work of high standard recognised as National/international level equivalent to Directorate would also be eligible. " The qualification for the post of Principal/director being same that of a professor, the Respondent No.4 being a Ph. D. is entitled to be appointed as Principal/professor Incharge. It has been stated that the petitioner is merely holder of a degree in Graduate Engineering and is not even holder of a Masters degree whereas the Respondent No.4 holds a Post-Graduate degree in Physics and is also Ph D. It has been stated that the Councils of Ministers has not approved the letter dated 16-3-90 as contained in Annexure-9. It has been stated that the petitioner is merely holder of a degree in Graduate Engineering and is not even holder of a Masters degree whereas the Respondent No.4 holds a Post-Graduate degree in Physics and is also Ph D. It has been stated that the Councils of Ministers has not approved the letter dated 16-3-90 as contained in Annexure-9. It has further been stated that from the aforementioned letter dated 16-3-90 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application it would appear that the said purported order was not issued upon compliance of the rules of Executive Business and thus the same does not have any legal force. 13 The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has further drew our attention to the letter dated 30-11-1989 which is contained in Annexure-C/7 to the Caveat application along with various letters which are Annexures-C/8, c/9 and C/10 thereto for the purpose of showing that the State of Bihar prepared a list of seniormpst persons working in different Engineering Colleges and in the said list various persons from general line have also been shown to be qualified for appointment in the posts of Principal Incharge of Engineering colleges. 14. Our attention has further been drawn to various notifications dated 21-2-1992 which are contained in Annexure-C/10 issued pursuant to the report of the Committee constituted for the determining the criteria for appointment for post of Professor. It has been stated that only pursuant to the aforementioned policy decision of the State, the Respondent No.4 was appointed as Professor Incharge by an order dated 13-3-1992. It has been stated that no decision has yet been taken by the Council of Ministers with regard to the recommendation of the Committee holding the post of professor/professor Incharge of the Engineering Colleges. According to the respondent No 4 he being senior to that of the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as professor Incharge. 15. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state is that by reason of the impugned order only stop-gap arrangement has been made. With regard to the contempt matter it was contended that petitioner had been absenting from his duties are without inform the authorities of the college and as such he should not be paid his salary. With regard to the contempt matter it was contended that petitioner had been absenting from his duties are without inform the authorities of the college and as such he should not be paid his salary. It has been contended that on 4-4-1992 the petitioner had handed over the charge and the order of status quo having been passed on 8-4-1992, no violation of the order of status quo was committed. It has been stated that no final order has yet been passed with regard to the appointment of the Principal and/or professor Incharge. 16. It is evident that the State Government has taken a policy decision that an ad hoc arrangement can be made for the purpose of filling of the post of Principal/professor Incharge and the same may be filled up on the basis of seniority. It has not been disputed that the Respondent No 4 is senior to the petitioner. It is also clear that for appointing the post of principal of the Engineering College, a person having Ph. D. in general science is entitled to be appointed in terms of the directive of the Central government. It is also not in dispute that keeping in view of length of service, the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner. 17. While making ad hoc arrangement for filling up the post of Principal incharge of an Engineering College, in opinion, the State Government cannot arbitrarily. It, thus, could not have ignored the claim of Respondent no.4 for holding the post of Principal/professor Incharge till a regular appointment is made. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, in our opinion, it is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. 19. So far as the contempt matter is concerned, in the interest of the justice it would be sufficient to direct that all lawful dues of the petitioner should be paid to him at early date and preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. We are also of the opinion that the Respondent No.4 having already taken over the post of Principal/professor Incbarge before the order of status quo on 8-4-1992 was passed, no case for punishing the contemnors-opposite parties has been made out. 21. 20. We are also of the opinion that the Respondent No.4 having already taken over the post of Principal/professor Incbarge before the order of status quo on 8-4-1992 was passed, no case for punishing the contemnors-opposite parties has been made out. 21. For the reasons aforementioned C. W. J. C. No.2566 of 1992 as also M J C. No 752 of 1992 are dismissed subject to the observations made hereinbefore. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.