Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1110 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar v. Bihar College Service Commission

2002-10-08

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application is being allowed only on a very limited point and that is that, as per the provisions of Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 it is provided in Section 2(9) that the Commission shall recommend for appointment to every post of teachers names of two persons arranged in order of preference and considered by the Commission to be the best qualified thereof. 3. In the instant case, Mr. Sohail Anwar has drawn the attention of this Court to the recommendation of the respondent No. 3 (Sri Harun Beck, Lecturer in History, S.K. Bage College) by respondent No. 1 (Bihar College Service Commission, through its Secretary) which is annexure 4 to the writ application and which shows that it was only the respondent No. 3 who was recommended for being appointed on the post of Principal, S.K. Bage College, Kolebira, District Gumla. The statutory provisions mentioned above cannot be side tracked. The other point which is equally important is that from a perusal of paragraph 6 of the writ application the advertisement made was very specific to the effect that the qualification for the post of Principal should be 1st or high 2nd Class Masters Degree. 4. Mr. Sohail Anwar has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant statutes and for the post of Principal it has been provided that the minimum qualification required was inter alia a 1st or high 2nd Class Master Degree. Mr. Sohail Anwar further states that admittedly the respondent No. 3 was neither a 1st Class holder nor did he have high second class Masters Degree. From a perusal of Annexure R-2, 3/A and R-2, 3/B it appears that respondent No. 3 had 50.5% marks where as the petitioner had 60% marks in the Masters Degree. 5. Mr. M.M. Pan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has stated that in view of the letter dated 24.12.1998 issued by the Secretary of the University Grant Commission (UGC) as contained at Annexure R-2, 3/C to the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the respondent No. 3 is entitled to the relaxation of 5%. This argument of Mr. 2 and 3, the respondent No. 3 is entitled to the relaxation of 5%. This argument of Mr. M.M. Pan cannot be accepted in as much as Annexure R-2, 3/C is merely a letter dated 24.12.1998 and it cannot override the statutes reffered to above and which has been quoted at paragraph 6 of the writ application. Moreover, this letter itself is very clear on the point that it shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under the Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission. Mr. Pan has very fairly submitted that S.K. Bage College, Kolebira is merely an affiliated college but it is not recognized by the Commission. In that view of the matter the aforesaid letter does not come to the rescue of the respondent. 6. Mr. M.M. Pan has also very fairly stated that the Commission had sent only one recommendation and that was the recommendation of the respondent No. 3. Single recommendation for a single post amounts to acting contrary to the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 which lays down that there should be at least two recommendations. Additionally, the criteria laid down in statutes referred to above also cannot be relaxed. 7. In that view of the matter the recommendation of the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 is hereby set aside. His consequential appointment also stands set aside. It goes without saying that till alternative arrangements are made by the equivalent body of the State of Jharkhand, the senior most teacher of S.K. Bage College, Kolebira shall continue to discharge the duties of Principal as Principal-in-charge. It is expected that equivalent authorities of the State of Jharkhand shall take immediate steps in relation to calling for fresh applications and in the event such an application is made then the Petitioner as also Respondent No. 3, if he is qualified, shall be at liberty to apply afresh which shall be considered as per their own merits without being prejudiced by this order in any manner. 8. With these observations and directions this writ application is disposed off. No order as to costs.