Case Background
The petitioner is a Principal in a Government Polytechnic College under the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar. By notification dated 05.06.2018, he was appointed provisionally as Principal, Polytechnic College, with effect from 02.07.2015, in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 – 67,000 plus A.G.P. Rs. 10,000 and special allowance of Rs. 2,000 (Level 14).
Before this appointment, the petitioner had faced a dispute when he applied for the post of Principal in Government Polytechnic Colleges pursuant to an earlier advertisement. His candidature was then rejected on the ground that he was not working against a post having AGP of Rs. 9,000 as Head of Department.
The petitioner challenged that rejection before the Patna High Court. At the Letters Patent Appeal stage in L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016, a Division Bench, by order dated 19.07.2017, held that he would be deemed to be holding the post of Head of Department with AGP of Rs. 9,000 with effect from 17.10.2011, and found that his candidature had been improperly rejected. In compliance, the Department issued Office Order No. 1397 dated 05.06.2018, provisionally appointing him as Principal with effect from 02.07.2015 in Level 14, subject to the outcome of an S.L.P. filed by the State against the Division Bench order.
Later, the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, dated 06.08.2020, inviting online applications for 32 posts of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges under the same Department. The petitioner, then serving as Principal of Kameshwar Narayan Singh Government Polytechnic College, Samastipur, obtained permission from the Department and submitted his online application on 02.09.2020.
For this recruitment, the eligibility condition included a minimum of 15 years’ experience in teaching/research/industry, of which at least three years must be at a post equivalent to Professor in the pay scale of Level 14. BPSC ultimately declared the petitioner ineligible on the ground that he lacked three years’ experience at Professor level (Level 14).
Separately, when the petitioner requested an experience certificate counting his Principal-level service in Level 14 from 02.07.2015, the Department, by Letter No. 1508 dated 31.05.2022, refused to certify his experience from that date. This refusal, combined with BPSC’s rejection, led to the present writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The central question before the Patna High Court was whether the petitioner had, on the date of Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, the required three years’ experience at a post equivalent to Professor in the Level 14 pay scale. Linked to this was the legality of the Department’s refusal to issue an experience certificate from 02.07.2015.
The petitioner argued that, in view of Office Order No. 1397 dated 05.06.2018, he had been appointed as Principal in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015. Therefore, by the date of his application in 2020, he already had more than three years of Principal-level experience in the required scale.
He pointed out that he had requested an experience certificate through Letter No. 218 dated 05.04.2022, asking the Department to certify his experience from 02.07.2015 in line with the 2018 office order. According to him, the refusal letter dated 31.05.2022 was arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly as he had been working as Incharge Principal of Darbhanga Engineering College, Darbhanga from 29.06.2012 and, after the 05.06.2018 notification, as regular Principal in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015.
He also submitted that he had duly provided his experience-related documents to BPSC. He referred to his covering Letter No. 674 dated 02.09.2020, enclosing experience certificates dated 14.08.2020 and 17.08.2020, as well as subsequent Letter No. 737 dated 12.09.2020 (sent by registered/speed post on 14.09.2020) enclosing earlier experience certificates issued by the Department vide Letter No. 2205 dated 09.09.2020 and Letter No. 2907 dated 15.12.2015. He claimed that all this material had been submitted before the cut-off date and sufficiently established his qualifying experience.
The petitioner further informed the Court, through a supplementary affidavit, that BPSC had published the result of Advertisement No. 15 of 2020 on 27.07.2022. In the unreserved category, only 10 candidates had been selected and three posts were still vacant. On this basis, he sought consideration for those remaining posts.
On behalf of the State respondents (Department of Science and Technology and others), it was argued that the petitioner’s appointment as Principal by Memo No. 1397 dated 05.06.2018 with effect from 02.07.2015 was only provisional. It was expressly subjected to the outcome of the State’s S.L.P. pending before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench order dated 19.07.2017 in L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016.
Therefore, according to the State, the petitioner could not claim an experience certificate from 02.07.2015. In their view, he could only be treated as Principal from the date of his actual joining, i.e., 11.06.2018. Consequently, they contended that there was nothing wrong in refusing to issue an experience certificate from 02.07.2015.
On behalf of BPSC, it was submitted that the Commission had followed the requisition and guidelines provided by the Department and applicable rules and regulations. Learned counsel highlighted Letter No. 2205 dated 09.09.2020, the experience certificate issued by the Joint Secretary of the Department, which showed the petitioner as a regular Principal only from 11.06.2018 in Level 14. Based on that certificate, the expert committee of BPSC concluded that the petitioner did not possess the requisite three years of experience at Professor level in Level 14 as on the crucial date, and therefore declared him ineligible.
The Court first examined the relevant recruitment condition from Advertisement No. 15 of 2020. It required a minimum of 15 years’ experience in teaching/research/industry, out of which at least three years must be at a post equivalent to that of Professor in Level 14.
The Court then looked at the two experience certificates issued by the Department. The first, dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P/8), recorded that the petitioner worked as Assistant Professor from 1986 to 2011, then as Associate Professor from 17.01.2011, and as Incharge Principal of Darbhanga Engineering College from 29.06.2012.
The second certificate, dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure P/13 to the second supplementary affidavit), detailed his service with corresponding pay scales and described him as regular Principal from 11.06.2018 in Level 14. Thus, from these certificates alone, the Department counted his Principal-level experience in Level 14 only from June 2018.
The Court identified the “bone of contention” as the effect of the Department’s Notification dated 05.06.2018. The petitioner contended that this notification clearly granted him the post of Principal in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015; therefore, he satisfied the three-year experience requirement as of 06.08.2020. The Department, however, insisted that because the appointment and pay-scale grant from 02.07.2015 were provisional and subject to the S.L.P., his experience could be counted only from 11.06.2018, the date of his actual joining.
The Court reviewed the earlier litigation. It noted that the petitioner had been working as Incharge Principal of Darbhanga Engineering College since 2012 and had been denied appointment as Principal of Polytechnic Colleges when he responded to Advertisement No. 02 of 2015. The rejection of his candidature then led to his earlier writ petition and L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016. The Division Bench, by order dated 19.07.2017, directed that he be appointed as Principal in Polytechnic Colleges in the Level 14 pay scale with effect from 02.07.2015. In pursuance of this direction, the Department issued Notification dated 05.06.2018, granting him Level 14 pay and the post of Principal from 02.07.2015.
On this factual foundation, the Court reached its conclusion. It held that, in view of the Division Bench’s order and the 05.06.2018 notification, the petitioner “was having experience of more than three years at the post equivalent to that of the Professor in the pay scale of Level 14” as on the date of Advertisement No. 15 of 2020.
The Court therefore found that the Department’s refusal, through Letter No. 1508 dated 31.05.2022, to grant an experience certificate from 02.07.2015 was “not justified in law as well as in the facts.” The letter was set aside.
The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department (respondent no. 2), to issue an experience certificate to the petitioner showing him as Principal, Polytechnic College, in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015. This was to be done within fifteen days from receipt/production of a copy of the order.
However, the Court added an important caveat: the experience certificate so issued would remain subject to the final outcome of the S.L.P. filed by the State against the Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016.
After the certificate is issued, the petitioner must submit it to BPSC within two weeks. In turn, BPSC was directed to consider his candidature for the three vacant posts of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges, in accordance with law and in terms of Advertisement No. 15 of 2020, and to take a final decision within four weeks from the date the certificate is submitted.
To ensure that this reconsideration remains meaningful, the Court further directed that until BPSC takes its final decision, one post of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges shall be kept reserved by the Department of Science and Technology.
On that basis, the writ application was allowed. The Court made no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for government teachers and principals whose senior posts and pay scales are linked with earlier court orders or backdated appointments.
The Patna High Court made it clear that when a court has already directed that a person be treated as holding a higher post with effect from an earlier date, the Government cannot simply ignore that date while issuing experience certificates, unless specifically authorised by law or by a higher court’s order.
Here, the petitioner’s eligibility for Principal posts in Government Engineering Colleges depended on whether his experience as Principal in Level 14 was counted from 02.07.2015 or only from 11.06.2018. By insisting on the later date despite the earlier Division Bench order, the Department effectively blocked his access to higher posts.
The Court corrected this by enforcing the earlier judicial direction and ensuring that experience is counted consistently with that order. At the same time, it respected the pending S.L.P. by making the certificate and resulting benefits subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
For other similarly placed employees, this decision shows that:
- Departments cannot deny experience certificates that follow from final, binding court orders.
- Recruiting bodies like BPSC must consider experience certificates in light of such orders, and cannot simply rely on a restrictive interpretation that harms candidates.
- Courts can protect candidates’ chances in ongoing or completed recruitment by reserving posts and directing reconsideration.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the petitioner had the requisite three years’ experience at a post equivalent to Professor in the Level 14 pay scale as on the date of Advertisement No. 15 of 2020.
Answer: Yes. In view of the Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016 and the Department’s Notification dated 05.06.2018 granting him the post of Principal in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015, the Court held that he had more than three years’ such experience on the relevant date.
Issue: Whether the Department was justified in refusing to issue an experience certificate to the petitioner from 02.07.2015 by Letter No. 1508 dated 31.05.2022.
Answer: No. The Court held that the refusal was not justified in law or on facts and set aside the letter, directing issuance of an experience certificate from 02.07.2015, subject to the outcome of the pending S.L.P.
Issue: What directions should be issued regarding consideration of the petitioner’s candidature in the ongoing recruitment under Advertisement No. 15 of 2020.
Answer: The Court directed the Department to issue the experience certificate within fifteen days, the petitioner to submit it to BPSC within two weeks thereafter, and BPSC to consider his candidature for the three vacant posts and take a final decision within four weeks, with one post of Principal kept reserved till such decision.
Cases Cited by the Court
- L.P.A. No. 655 of 2016, order dated 19.07.2017, Division Bench of the Patna High Court (relating to the petitioner’s earlier claim and directing his appointment as Principal in Level 14 with effect from 02.07.2015).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10224 of 2022
Case Title: Dr. Aseem Kumar Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 797
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Mr. P. K. Jaipuriar, Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriar, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Mr. Rajnikant Kumar
- For the respondents (State/Department of Science and Technology and others): Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta (GP 10)
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 concerning recruitment to the post of Principal in Government Engineering Colleges and issuance of experience certificate.
Date of Judgment: 06.02.2024
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
