JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to relieve the petitioner for joining the Quality Improvement Programme (in short QIP) sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India and All India Council for Technology Education (for short AICTE) in which the petitioner was selected after written test and intervie for doing Ph. D. in Indian Institute of Technology (in short IIT), Chennai. 3. The petitioner is the Associate Professor in Metallurgical Engineering Department, NIT Jamshedpur. His case is that he submitted an application for admission in QIP sponsored by AICTE through Regional Institute of Technology (in short RIT), Jamshedpur. The petitioner alleged to have been selected for admission in IIT, Madras and was asked to visit there for completing pre- registration formalities. He made an application for relieving him to join pre- registration visit which has been illegally and arbitrarily denied by the respondent RIT. 4. Mr. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondent-RIT in not relieving the petitioner is wholly illegal and male fide. Learned counsel submitted that earlier the petitioner filed an application for doing Ph. D, under QIP but the application of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Principal, RIT when the Junior to the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination. In 2003 also the petitioner appeared in the written test and interview and was selected by QIP and the recommendation of QIP was duly accepted by IIT, Madras and the petitioner was asked to fulfill certain formalities before joining the programme but the respondent-RIT refused to relieve him for pre- registration visit. Learned counsel submitted that one Mr. B.R. Prasad of the department of Civil Engineering was selected by QIP along with the petitioner and he has been relieved for pre- registration visit and after relieving him the total strength of Civil Engineering Department became less than 65 % but the case of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that the total strength after relieving the petitioner will come to less than 70 %. Learned counsel further drew my attention to various documents annexed with the writ application and the supplementary affidavit and submitted that although according to the procedure only full time regular and permanent employees are entitled to apply for the aforesaid course but the respondent-RIT even relieved the temporary employee for doing Ph. D. namely. Sri. S.B. Prasad. 5. Respondents case, on the other hand, is that the petitioner earlier tried to do his Ph. D. through Ranchi University but was unable to complete his Ph. D. there and dropped the said programme. The petitioner also tried to do his Ph. D. from B.E. College, Howrah but there also he failed to do so. Further case of the respondents is that the total strength in the Mettalurgical department is 13 and 3 posts are lying vacant. If the petitioner is also relieved then the sanctioned strength of the department will fall to 61.53 %. 6. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- RIT, on the other hand, submitted that so far the case of Sri. S.B. Prasad is concerned, although he was a temporary teacher but subsequently he was confirmed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was twice relieved for doing Ph. D. but he did not succeed. Learned counsel submitted that so far the case of Sri. B.K. Prasad is concerned, he was relieved because even after relieving the strength came to be within the limit. 7. Admittedly the petitioner appeared in the written test and interview and he was selected and the recommendation of QIP was accepted by IIT Madras. It is only because the petitioner is not being relieved, he is unable to join IIT Madras for doing his Ph. D. under the aforesaid programme. It has been categorically stated by the petitioner that Mr. B.K. Prasad who was selected by QIP along with the petitioner has been relieved for pre- registration visit and even after his relieving the total strength of Civil Engineering Department became less than 65 % but the petitioner has been illegally denied on the ground that the strength will come to less that 70 %. This fact has not been denied by the respondents. In para 18 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in certain cases rule of 30 % has been violated which does not mean that the rule cannot be implemented. This fact has not been denied by the respondents. In para 18 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in certain cases rule of 30 % has been violated which does not mean that the rule cannot be implemented. When admittedly in the case of B.K. Prasad and S.B. Prasad, after their relieving, the total strength came down to less than 70% then denial by the respondents to relieve the petitioner on the ground that the total strength will come to less than 70% is, in my opinion, wholly improper, unjustified and discriminatory. When the rule has not been strictly followed in the case of similarly situated teachers then there is no reason why it shall be strictly followed in the case of the petitioner only. In my view, therefore, denial of the respondents to relieve the petitioner will amount to doing injustice with the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and the respondent- RIT is directed to relieve the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.