Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals since arise out of common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14007 of 2005, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 has been preferred by the persons who were selected and appointed on the post of Lecturer in the faculty of Architecture in National Institute of Technology, Patna (hereinafter referred to as NIT) whereas L.P.A. No. 484 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of NIT and others assailing the order impugned. 4. It is argued by counsel for the appellants of L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 that the procedures adopted by the selection committee in short-listing some of the applicants in Architecture discipline was very much in consonance with the advertisement and also the provisions of law and, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this court could not have interfered with the selection of three persons on the post of Lecturers. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellants that short-listing is permissible in law and precautionary measures were taken by the authorities while advertising the posts and since the posts in the particular discipline were to be filled up, according to new instruction, from amongst the Master Degree holders, the authorities applied the principle of shortlisting and selected the most suitable persons as Lecturers. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, however, submitted that by applying the principle of short-listing, back door method of appointment was adopted by the authorities by not giving opportunities to all the applicants including the writ petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that at the relevant time when advertisement was issued, minimum required qualification was Bachelors Degree in a particular discipline and since the writ petitioner who was a Bachelor Degree holder and was already continuing on the teaching post, had applied for the post of Lecturer, he was eligible and in no way he could have been eliminated from the process of selection by applying the principle of short-listing. 6. Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as AICTE) submitted that minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturer, according to advertisement, was only degree from a recognized institution. 7. 6. Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as AICTE) submitted that minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturer, according to advertisement, was only degree from a recognized institution. 7. Learned Single Judge of this court, however, on appreciation of facts and submission of the parties, held that the procedure applied by the authorities in shortlisting the writ petitioner and other similarly situated persons, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on that score, quashed the selection and appointment of the appellants of L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 as contained in Annexure12 of the writ application. 8. We are informed that the appellants of L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 were appointed on the post of Lecturer in the concerned discipline vide notification dated 6.12.2005 and till date they are working as Lecturers pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in this appeal. Mr. Kanth and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, however, submitted that if the procedure is to be applied de novo, the persons who were also not selected in other discipline, may make a grievance and the department will have to consider the cases of all the applicants totalling 465. 9. From the tenor of the order impugned, we find that this Court has only quashed selection and appointment of the appellants of L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 who were respondent nos. 5 to 7 in the writ application and had not issued any direction so far other faculties or candidates were concerned. 10. Keeping in view the direction of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, the appellant NIT should take interview of all the twenty-five candidates including the writ petitioner who had applied for the post of Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid in the discipline in question. To this, learned counsel for the appellants also may not have any grievance. 11. Keeping in view the direction of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, the appellant NIT should take interview of all the twenty-five candidates including the writ petitioner who had applied for the post of Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid in the discipline in question. To this, learned counsel for the appellants also may not have any grievance. 11. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, order impugned is set aside and the appellant NIT is directed to call all the twenty-five candidates including the persons already appointed in a fresh interview on the date notified by it and after holding the interview, it may select suitable persons on the post of Lecturer strictly on merit and in accordance with law. 12. Till the process of fresh interview is concluded, the appellants of L.P.A. No. 463 of 2007 would continue on the post of Lecturer pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. 13. With the aforementioned observation/direction/modification, these appeals are disposed of.