1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned single Judge
in C.W.J.C. No. 3881 of 2022 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition.
2. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants having passed the final examination held in the year 2018 had
been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Construction Engineering from Jadavpur University, Kolkata. On 08.03.2019, an
Advertisement was published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short the ‘BPSC’) inviting recruitment for the posts of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in different departments of the Government of Bihar. In terms of clause 3 of the Advertisement, a candidate was required to possess
a degree in Civil Engineering from the Institute/University approved by the AICTE or approved by the UGC. The AICTE, New Delhi vide its
notification dated 28.04.2017 published All India Council for Technical Education (Major/Care Branch of Engineering/Technology and their
relevant/appropriate course leading to degree in Engineering/Technology 2017) for recruitment to teaching position wherein Construction Engineering
was shown as a corresponding course and as a relevant/appropriate nomenclature of undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering. The AICTE vide
subsequent notification clarified that earlier notification dated 28.04.2017 was also applicable to other Government posts and jobs. Hence, in pursuance
of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2019, the appellants submitted their online application form within stipulated period for the post of Assistant Engineer.
On 16.02.2022 the BPSC after scrutiny of applications published list of ineligible candidates for the Advertisement whose degree/institution/Branch
were not found to be as per the requirement in the advertisement and the appellants were shocked to find their names and registration numbers
mentioned in the said list at SI. No.53 and 87 respectively. The appellants immediately approached the respondent-BPSC and they were declared
ineligible as their degree was in Construction Engineering whereas the eligibility requirement under the Advertisement was of degree in Civil
Engineering.
3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants preferred representation before the BPSC, the BPSC did not act
upon their representations and, on 03.03.2022, the schedule for examination of Advertisement No. 1 of 2019 was published. Under such circumstance,
a writ petition was filed before the Court, but the same has been dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 18.04.2022 on the ground that
the examination had already been conducted on 12.03.2022 and 13.03.2022. He contended that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the
contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that they had taken all reasonable steps within their reach for early listing of the case but they could
not succeed in getting the matter listed. He further contended that the rejection of the candidature of the appellants in a competitive examination for a
public post amounted to infringement of appellants fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He contended
that even if the examination had been held, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that their degree
in Construction Engineering is equivalent to and an approved nomenclature of the degree in Civil Engineering ought to have been adjudicated, as non
adjudication of the said issue would deprive the appellants from appearing in future competitive examinations also.
4. Responding to the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the BPSC submitted that
there is no error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. He contended that the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition as the
appellants failed to show their interest between 07.03.2022 to 11.03.2022 to get their application listed and heard. He further contended that the prayer
of the appellants for conducting separate examination was totally misconceived and, thus, the learned single Judge rightly held in his judgment dated
18.04.2022 that conducting separate examination would be impracticable for the reason that for the two candidates, BPSC will have to set the
examination papers and further hold other processes up to the stage of declaring their result. However, he conceded that so far as the relief prayed
for by the appellants in the writ petition for declaring their degree in Construction Engineering is equivalent to and an approved nomenclature of the
degree in Civil Engineering is concerned, the same could have been adjudicated by the learned single judge.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records.
6. In the writ petition, the appellants had prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of writ(s) order(s) direction(s) in nature of certiorari for quashing the list of ineligible candidates published by Bihar
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) With respect to Advertisement Number 01/2019 for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) in different departments of Government of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the advertisement), in so far as, it
pertains to the petitioners, whose names and registration numbers have been shown at serial numbers 53 and 87 respectively therein on the
22 02 ground that the Petitioners' degrees are not as per the requirement in the advertisement.
(ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Petitioners' degree in Construction Engineering is equiv alent
to and an approved nomenclature of the degree in Civil Engineering on the basis of AICTE notifications dated 28.04.2017and 06.10.2021.
(iii) For issuance of Writ(s) order(s) direction(s)in nature of Mandamus (ii) directing the Respondent Commission to consider the candida
ture of the Petitioners in light of AlCTE notifications dated 28.04.2017 and 06.10.2021and allow the petitioners to participate in the
examination for the Advertisement Number 01/2019 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in different depart-ments of Government of
Bihar, which is scheduled to be held on 12.03.2022 and 13.03.2022. Alternatively, for is suance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent Commission to consider the candidature of the Petitioners in light of AlCTE notifications dated 28.04.2017 and 06.10.2021 and
to conduct and hold a separate examination for the petitioners with respect to the Advertisement Number 01/2019 for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in different departments or Government of Bihar post of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) in case the petitioners are not
accommodated in the examinations scheduled for 12.03.2022 and 13.03.2022.
(iv) Any other writ(s) order(s) direction (s) for which the petitioners are found to be entitled.â€
7. It is not disputed that the examinations relating to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2019 were conducted as scheduled by the BPSC on 12.03.2022 and
13.03.2022. It is also not disputed that BPSC after scrutiny of applications, published a list of ineligible candidates for the Advertisement on 16.02.2022
in which the appellants registration numbers were included.
8. Under such circumstance, we are of the opinion, that the learned single Judge rightly declined the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for
conducting separate examination for them. However, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that even though
the examinations had been held, the issue relating to issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the appellants degree in Construction Engineering to be
equivalent to and an approved nomenclature of the degree in Civil Engineering should have been adjudicated.
9. Since, the issue which has been incorporated in para-1(ii) of the writ petition had not become infructuous due to the reason that the examinations
had already been held and the non adjudication of the said issue may affect the right of the appellants to participate in future examinations, we allow
the appeal in part and remand the matter back to the learned single Judge with a request to decide the issues raised by the appellants for the relief
prayed for in para-1(ii) of the writ petition after hearing the parties. The dismissal of the writ petition to that extent is set aside.
10. We, however, make it clear that the other reliefs prayed for by the appellants in the writ petition were rightly not allowed by the learned single
Judge and to that extent, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned single Judge.
