Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel further submits that once the respondents-Board issued the advertisement calling for applications from the degree-holder of Information Technology, it cannot go back. In other words, the Board cannot change the rule of game in the midst of the process of appointment, which proposition is well settled.

As against this, Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel, Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Mr. Rajendra Krishna and Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, submitted that by virtue of the power conferred under Section 79 (C) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, Bihar State Electricity Board Electrical Engineers (General) Rules, 1976 was framed. One of the rules such as Rule 8 does prescribe for direct recruitment of a candidate having degree of engineering in Electrical /Electronics from a recognized University and in consonance with the said rule, applications were called for through advertisement from the candidates having degree of engineering in Electrical/Electronics and Communication with minimum 65% of marks for general candidate and 60% for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. So far as minimum percentage of marks is concerned, that was brought under the rule through an amendment w.e.f. 14.10.1998. However, stipulation made under the advertisement issued on 20.9.2008 was subsequently diluted by the subsequent corrigendums issued but those corrigendums were issued by the Secretary of the Electricity Board without having concurrence of the Board and as such, stipulation made in the corrigendum contrary to stipulation prescribed under the advertisement can not be given effect to as that would be contrary to law. On these premise, it was submitted that the candidates having degree of engineering in the trade other than Electrical and Electronics and Communication would not be entitled to be appointed for the posts advertised and, therefore, even if the petitioners came out successful, they cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Learned counsel in support of their submissions have referred to decisions in the case of 1994 (2) S.C.C. 630 { J & K Public Service Commission and Others -versus- Dr. Narinder Mohan and Others}, 1974 (3) S.C.C. 220 {The State of Haryana -versus- Subash Chander Marwaha and Others}, 1992 Supp (2) S.C.C. 343 {Rakesh Ranjan Verma and Others -versus- State of Bihar and Others}.

clause (c) of Rule 8 which reads as follows:-

"8C - Education and degree in electrical/electronics engineering from a recognized University or Institute in India or its equivalent.

Provided that in the matter of judging what qualifications are equivalent to a degree in electrical/electronics engineering, the Board shall be guided by the principles laid down by the State Government.

Provided further that in case the Board requires graduates in mechanical engineering, Board may prescribe a degree in mechanical engineering as an equivalent qualification."

Coming to the case of petitioner-Rimil Topno, he having degree in engineering in Electronics also came out successful in both the examinations but he is being denied appointment on the plea that he is not having degree in Electronics & Communication. Such plea is not tenable in view of the definition of cadre as defined under Clause 2(ii) of the Bihar State Electricity Board (Generation-cum-Transmission) Rules, 1976, whereby the engineer having degree in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Tele Communication forms cadre. That apart, as per Rule 8 (C) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules 1976, educational eligibility has been stipulated as degree in Electrical/Electronics. Thus, any denial of appointment of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner is not having degree in Electronics and Communication is against both the rules, as mentioned above. Therefore, petitioner-Rimil Topno is entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission) Code A-1, subsequently designated as Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO).

Coming to the cases of petitioners - Satyanarayan Patar, Gaurav Kumar [writ petitioner of W.P (S) No.5235 of 2009], Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ajit Nirmal Tirkey they having degree in engineering in Electrical & Electronics are being denied appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) Code A-2 on the plea that they are not having degree in Electrical, rather they are having degree in Electrical & Electronics which are not only untenable but appear to be illogical also, as the knowledge of Electronics with the knowledge of Electrical can always be advantageous to the employer. Moreover, certificate of the Head of Department of NIIT, Kalikat is there wherein he has certified that the degree of petitioner - Satyanarayan Patar be treated as Electrical. Further, it does appear that B.I.T., Mesra has informed the respondents-Board that Electrical & Electronics is equivalent to Electrical. This information seems to have been given in connection with the case of petitioners-Ajit Nirmal Tirkey and Pramod Kumar Gupta. Under these situations, aforesaid petitioners are directed to be appointed on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) Code A-2.