BINOD KUMAR ROY, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 21. 12. 1990 passed by the dean, Faculty Affairs. Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur (Respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexure-12 in so far as it relates to his termination of services by grant of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari. The impugned order reads thus : "further to letter No. Estt. 4493 (FA)/89-1itk/4183 dated December 1, 1989, the term of probationary period of Shri P. N. Tewarl. Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft), Department of aerospace Engineering has been extended for a period of six months w. e. f. November 4. 1990 on the same terms and conditions contained in the original appointment letter No. DF/d-1 (FA)/iitk/88/ 1333 dated September 13/20, 1988, with the stipulation that no further extension will be given. Sd. (V. SUNDARARAJAN)DEAN, FACULTY AFFAIRS" The Relevant Facts : ( 2 ) THE petitioner then serving as Seargent in Indian Air Force who had obtained a First Class in the Degree Course of A. M. I. E. (India) in Mechanical Engineering which is equivalent to 8. Tech. or B. E. , and was having a certificate granted by the Indian Air Force in regard to maintenance and major repairs of HT 2, Gnat and Dakota aircrafts in terms of Advertisement No. DF-15/87 december 23. published by the Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur, applied for his appointment. He. along with others, was called for Interview. He secured the highest marks at the Interview which is being denied. He was selected for the appointment. Vide appointment letter dated 13/20th September, 1988 (Annexure-3), he was appointed as Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft ). Pursuant to this appointment, he sought voluntary retirement to discharge from the indian Air Force which was accorded. 2. 1. In his appointment letter (as contained in Annexure-3 ). following terms were mentioned : "4. PROBATION : Subject to the provisions of the Rules and Statutes, this appointment is made on probation for a period of one year and till the necessary certificate for maintenance of the institute aircraft are obtained, from the date of joining. However, the appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation. The appointment will be confirmed on permanent basis, after satisfactory completion of the probationary period. 5. However, the appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation. The appointment will be confirmed on permanent basis, after satisfactory completion of the probationary period. 5. DURATION : On confirmation after the period of probation and subject to satisfactory service thereafter, you shall be retained in the services of the Institute on a permanent basis. The age of retirement will be governed by the provisions of the Statutes in force. " 2. 2. Vide his letter dated March 17. 1989, the petitioner Informed his Head, Aeronautical engineering Department that he is preparing for A. M. I. E. Examination scheduled to take place in September, 1989. He was intimated vide Annexure-6 that his confirmation will be subject to his obtaining A. M. E. licence within a reasonable time. The petitioner made another communication vide Annexure-7. Vide Annexure-8 the Faculty Incharge-Fllght Lab. I. I. T. . Kanpur, sought clarifications in regard to the examination for AME licence. Vide Annexure-9 the petitioner explained his position stating that he has not been informed about the acceptance and/or rejection of his examination form. Vide Annexure-10 the Dean Faculty Affairs, I. I. T. , kanpur. Informed the petitioner that his probationary period has been extended for a period of one year with effect from 4th November, 1989 on same terms and conditions as contained in his appointment letter (Annexure-3 ). The petitioner vide Annexure-11 made another correspondence to the Dean Faculty explaining, inter alia, that since there was no Chief Engineer at the relevant time to forward his examination form, thus in relation to the examination held for September. 1989 Session, the Civil Aviation Department did not consider his experience at I. I. T. , Kanpur and that the results of March. 1990 Session is expected. Thereafter, the Impugned office order as contained in Annexure-12 was passed. The Submissions : ( 3 ) SRI Slddheshwarl Prasad. the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows : (i) Under the advertisement, the only requirement for the purposes of appointment of maintenance Engineer was to be B. Tech. 1990 Session is expected. Thereafter, the Impugned office order as contained in Annexure-12 was passed. The Submissions : ( 3 ) SRI Slddheshwarl Prasad. the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows : (i) Under the advertisement, the only requirement for the purposes of appointment of maintenance Engineer was to be B. Tech. In Aeronautical or Mechanical Engineering which the petitioner undlsputedly possessed and thus the subsequent imposition for obtaining necessary certificate for maintenance of the Institute of Aircraft was wholly arbitrary, void besides unreasonable and impermissible for I. I. T. (ii) Even assuming that this term was valldly imposed on a bare perusal of the document as contained in Annexure-1, which is the Indian Air Force Trade Proficiency Certificate, it was/is crystal clear that the petitioner had special training in regard to maintenance and major repairs of ht 2 Gnat and Dakota Aircrafts, thus the petitioner was possessing the necessary certificate for maintenance of, inter alia. Dakota Aircrafts which are also a civil aircraft, thus his services were illegally not made permanent. (iii) Issuance of a direction to obtain a licence for maintenance of Institute aircraft repeatedly vide Annexures-4 and 6 for the reason already stated was void as in service jurisprudence, it is well-settled that imposition of any fresh term contrary to and/or variance of the terms and conditions Issued in the advertisement letter is not permissible. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended as follows : (i) No wrong was committed in Insisting the petitioner to obtain the certificate for maintenance of the institute aircraft, which apparently meant civil aircraft and not military aircraft, coupled with the additional fact that the petitioner himself went on applying for grant of more time so that he could obtain that certificate, the submissions made by Mr. Prasad are not valid. (ii) Unless the petitioner could have possessed that certificate, he could not issue any certificate in regard to airworthiness of any civil aircraft. (iii) consequently, this writ petition has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Our Findings : ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute before us that Dakota aircrafts are not civil aircrafts though at times they are being used by the Indian Air Force. (iii) consequently, this writ petition has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Our Findings : ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute before us that Dakota aircrafts are not civil aircrafts though at times they are being used by the Indian Air Force. The Trade Proficiency Certificate granted by the Indian air Force proves the factum that the petitioner had specialised training in maintenance and major repairs of HT 2, Gnat and Dakota Alrcrafts. The advertisement in question laid down only one requirement for appointment as Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft), namely, that the applicant should be B. Tech in Aeronautical or Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner possessed the required degree which is undisputed before us. Admittedly, the authorities of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, after Interview had selected him for appointment. The question, therefore. Is as to whether the respondents were justified in imposing additional terms while appointing him on probation vide Annexure-4. Our answer is a definite no. Such a requirement was not asked for at the time of making applications for appointment to the post in question. It was only after his selection in I. I. T. the petitioner sought voluntary retirement from I. A. F. The imposition of this term, being contrary to the Advertisement itself, the respondents could not insist for production of such a licence by the petitioner even though he had prayed for grant of some time for production of such a licence for the reasons mentioned in his letters which have been brought on the record. As a necessary corrolary. there was no Justification for the respondents not to consider the case of permanent appointment of the petitioner vide annexure-12 rather in the backdrop aforementioned, we arc of the view that the petitioner was/is entitled to for consideration of his permanent appointment to the post in question. ( 6 ) IN the result, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-12, is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purposes of permanent appointment to the post in question objectively and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraph. This writ petition is allowed with costs quantified to the extent of Rs. 5. 000 only. This writ petition is allowed with costs quantified to the extent of Rs. 5. 000 only. ( 7 ) THE office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri Pankaj Bhatta, the learned counsel for the respondents for a follow up action. .