JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.
1. In this writ petition several reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioners, but at the hearing of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would not press for other reliefs and would only challenge the notifications, Annexures 4 and 5 dated 19.9.1995 and 8.5.1995 whereunder respondents 4 and 5 have been posted as Project Director in the department of Science and Technology and Director of Science and Technology, respectively. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to notice the facts in detail which relate to the other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology on 3.1.1966. He subsequently joined the Government Polytechnic at Ranchi on 11.1.1969 as Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering. He thereafter worked as the Head of Department of Electronic Engineering on being selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission and since February, 1986 he was in the cadre of Principal of Government Polytechnics. According to the petitioner, his meritorious work has been appreciated by all concerned.
According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Professor of Mathematics in the Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri vide notification dated 1.4.1971. He thereafter was given personal promotion to the post of Associate Professor by upgrading his post vide notification dated 22.8.1987 with effect from 15.4.1984. He was thereafter granted personal promotion to the post of Professor vide notification dated 18.3.1993 by following the same method of upgrading the post held by him as Associate Professor.
Respondent No. 5 was similarly appointed as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and posted at the MIT, Muzaffarpur vide notification dated 25.9.1968. He was also promoted to the post of Associate Professor in the year 1980 under personal promotion scheme. Subsequently, in the year 1985, he was promoted to the supernumerary post of Professor under time bound promotion scheme by doubly upgrading his basic post without disturbing inter se seniority and rights of his seniors and superiors.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the personal promotions granted to respondents 4 and 5 did not have the effect of affecting the seniority of others, because the grant of such Promotion did not affect the inter se seniority of the teachers. His further case is that for the reasons stated in the writ petition the grant of personal promotion to respondents 4 and 5 was illegal and they were wrongly given the benefit of higher pay scale. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 and 5 have been favoured by the State Government inasmuch as by Annexure-4, notification dated 19.9.1995, respondent No. 4 has been appointed as the Project-Director in the department of Science and Technology in the State Project Implementation Unit in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300. The notification, Annexure-4, states that respondent No. 4 has been posted against the aforesaid newly created post till further orders. Similarly, by Annexure-5 dated 8.5.1995, respondent No. 5 has been directed to look after the work of the Director, Science and Technology till further orders in addition to this responsibilities as Joint Director.
4. In the writ petition, five main reliefs have been claimed. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification dated 19.9.1995, Annexure-4, appointing respondent No. 4 as the Project Director. He has also prayed for quashing of the notification dated 8.5.1995 whereunder respondent No. 5 has been given the charge of the post of Director, Science and Technology. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notification dated 18.3.1991, Annexure-3, so far it relates to respondents 4 and 5 giving them personal promotion to the post of Professor. He has also prayed for quashing of the notification dated 22.8.1987, Annexure-2, promoting respondent No. 4 to the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner has lastly prayed that a direction be issued by this Court that the pay scale of Principals of the Polytechnics be upgraded to Rs. 7300-7600 with a view to remove the anomaly which has resulted in view of the implementation of personal promotion and time bound promotion schemes because of which the beneficiaries of such schemes, though junior to the Principals of Polytechnics, are entitled to receive a higher salary.
5. At the hearing of the writ petition, Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the grant of promotion to respondents 4 and 5. It was submitted that it was futile for the petitioner to contend that he was senior to them because they belong to two separate cadres. It was not disputed before me that the teachers employed in the various Engineering Colleges belong to a different cadre, from the cadre of teachers at various levels employed in the various polytechnics. The respondents, therefore, strongly objected to the claim of the petitioner that he was senior to respondents 4 and 5 contending that since they belong to different cadres, question of inter se seniority did not arise. It was also submitted that the notification granting promotion to respondent No. 4 to the post of Associate Professor was dated 22.8.1987, and, therefore, after a lapse of 8 years, the petitioner could not be permitted to challenge the same.
6. It is not necessary for me to go into these questions because Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that he would confine this writ petition to challenging the notifications, Annexures 4 and 5 only. As far as other reliefs are concerned, the petitioner was not interested in pressing them in this writ petition and should be granted liberty to file a separate writ petition challenging those notifications. I, therefore, do not wish to express any opinion on the contentions of the parties so far as they relate to the grant of personal promotions to respondents 4 and 5, nor is it necessary in this writ petition to consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding the grant of higher pay scale to the Principals of Polytechnics, so as to avoid the anomaly which has resulted on account of grant of personal, promotion/time bound promotion to teachers junior than the Principal.
7. So far as the posts of Project Director and Director in the department of Science and Technology are concerned, admittedly the posts are not borne on any cadre and they are ex-cadre posts. There is, however, a serious controversy as to whether the posts of Project Director and Director in the department of Science and Technology are to be filled up by the Principals/Professors of the Engineering Colleges alone or whether the Principals of Government Polytechnics are also eligible for appointment as Project Director and Director in the department of Science and Technology. While the petitioner contends that he being the senior most Principal of Government Polytechnics, he should also be considered for appointment against the ex-cadre posts of Project Director/Director, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that these two posts have to be filled up from amongst the Principals of Engineering Colleges and Professors of Engineering Colleges, and Principals of Government Polytechnics are not eligible for appointment against these two ex cadre posts. Only one post of Deputy Director is available for being filled up from amongst the Principals of Government Polytechnics and the petitioner has been appointed as a Deputy Director.
8. Though the Respondents have asserted that the posts of Project Director and Director can only be filled up by persons holding the post of Principal of Engineering Colleges and Professors in the Engineering Colleges, no material has been placed before the Court in support of this contention. No rule, notification, memorandum or executive instruction has been brought to my notice to substantiate the claim of the respondents that only those teachers holding the post of Principal or Professor in the Government Engineering Colleges shall be considered for appointment to these two ex-cadre posts. On the other hand, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the past even officers belonging to Indian Administrative Service have held these posts. In the absence of clear guidelines, it is not possible for me to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter. However, one can take notice of the fact that the posts are not borne on any cadre presumably because they relate to projects which are of temporary nature.
9. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even if these two posts are ex-cadre posts, those who were deputed to work against these posts retained their lien in their parent cadre while on deputation, and therefore, guidelines issued by the Government from time to time must be followed. According to the petitioner, the Government instruction as contained in memo No. 3918 dated 25.10.80 and Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code ought to have been followed. In the aforesaid memo dated 25.10.80, in paragraph 5, it was directed as follows:
If a department normally obtains the service of Government servants from other departments on deputation and makes posting and transfer of such Government servants then the parent department should prepare a panel of such suitable officers every 6 months from which the requisitioning department can obtain the services of Government servants on deputation. Such panels should be prepared and sent to the user departments in March and August each year.
10. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following the Government instruction which is binding, selection has been made in an arbitrary mariner without having regard to seniority or merit. The normal requirement of preparing a list of eligible and qualified officers has been given a go by, which vitiates the entire process. He, therefore, submitted that the least that the Government is expected to do is to follow its own instruction and before posting any person as Project Director or Director, it should have prepared a panel of suitable officers from which the requisitioning department, could obtain the services of Government servants on deputation. Though such an averment has been made in paragraphs 24 of take writ petition, there is no clear reply to the same. Counsel for the State however submitted that respondents 4 and 5 have been asked to perform the duties of Project Director and Director only till further orders, It was not disputed by him that the various schemes and projects form part of a continuing process and it is not as if such projects and schemes will come to an end shortly. Obviously, therefore, in the posting of officers against ex-cadre posts to look after the execution-of such projects and schemes, the State cannot Act arbitrarily and must be guided by norms which should be uniformly applied in accordance with relevant rules, if any, and also in the light of Government instructions issued from time to time. In the matter of selection to such posts, there should be some semblance of fairness and all eligible officers who apt for such deputation should be considered having regard to norms determined by the State Government. The memo of the Government dated 25.10.1980 itself provides for the preparation of a panel of suitable officers who shall be requisitioned on deputation. If a procedure is not prescribed or followed in the matter of selection of candidates for being posted against such posts, there will be scope for criticism that the selection is arbitrary, and only favoured candidates are selected for such posts. There is, therefore, substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in the matter of selection of officers for holding the posts of Project Director or Director in the department of Science and Technology to which respondents 4 and 5 have been appointed, the Government must lay down the norms and thereafter prepare a panel of suitable and eligible candidates in accordance with paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 25.10.1980. If this procedure is followed, it will ensure fairness in action. While it is true that no one has a right to go on deputation outside his cadre, it is also true that in the matter of selecting suitable candidates to hold such prestigious posts, the State should Act fairly and not arbitrarily.
11. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) the Government must lay down the norms guidelines keeping in view the AICTE norms clearly specifying the category of persons from different departments who are eligible for holding the post of Project Director/Director in the department of Science and Technology to which respondents 4 and 5 have been appointed. These norms must also clearly specify the conditions of eligibility including minimum educational and other qualifications of the candidates who may be deputed to work as Project Director/Director.
(ii) After the norms and guidelines have been laid down, a panel of officers should be prepared in accordance with paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 25.10.1980 and suitable persons may be selected from the said panel to work on deputation against the ex-cadre posts of Project Director/Director in the department of Science and Technology.
(iiii) Since respondents 4 and 5 have been appointed against the aforesaid posts only till further orders, the Government is directed to lay down the guidelines/norms and complete the process of selection within a period of four months from the date of judgment. After selections are made on the basis of the directions contained herein, the persons so selected shall be deputed to work against the aforesaid posts and respondents 4 and 5, if not selected for deputation, shall revert back to their parent cadre.
The petitioner will be at liberty to file another writ petition claiming other reliefs prayed for in this writ petition, but nothing said in this order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of his claim.
12. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.