IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.13743 of 2010
1. BRAJ BHUSHAN KUMAR S/O LATE DIP NARAYAN PRASAD C/O
LAL MOHAN YADAV, BANK MEN'S COLONY, CHITRAGUPTA
NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA
2. AJAY KUMAR S/O RATNESHWAR PRASAD C/O DR. SANJAY
KUMAR 'GREEN', GREEN NIWAS BETWEEN GUMATI NO. 2 & 3,
R.B.S.S. ROAD, BIKHANPUR, BHAGALPUR (BIHAR)
3. SRI BHAGWAN SINGH S/O LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH
MOHALLA- FAZALGANJ, P.O. + P.S.- SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS
4. SURENDRA KUMAR ROY S/O SRI YOGENDRA ROY SAMTA
COLONY, BEHIND BAZAR SAMITI, HAZIPUR, P.O.- HAZIPUR,
DISTT.- VAISHALI
5. ANUPMA KUMARI D/O SRI BHAGWATI PRASAD RAJA BAZAR,
BIHIYA TOWER ROAD, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
6. RAJESH KUMAR S/O AJIT KUMAR SINGH MOHALLA-
RAJENDRA NAGAR, DISTT.- NAWADAH
7. ASHOK PRASAD MEHTA S/O TARINI MEHTA C/O RENU
COMPLEX, BHUT NATH ROAD (1ST PANI TANKI), PATNA-20
8. KAMESHWAR SINGH S/O RAM SURESH SINGH C/O PREM RAI
(SUKULDEO BHAWAN), ROAD NO. 8, RAM LAKHAN PATH, ASHOK
NAGAR, BHOJPUR COLONY, KANKARBAGH, PANA-20
9. KAMLESH KUMAR NIRANJAN S/O SRI RAMESHWAR RAM
MOHALLA- KASAP, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARA)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR
3. THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
4. THE SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
5. COMMISSIONER OF MANREGA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA-15
7. THE UNDER SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
8. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
-----------
2. 30.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and the State.
An advertisement was issued inviting
applications for appointment to posts under the
2
District Rural Development Agencies in the
department of Rural Development, Government of
Bihar. The posts were (i) Programme Officer (ii)
Assistant Project Officer (iii) Assistant Project Officer
(Marketing) and (iv) Project Economist. Together
they form Group-I. The qualifications for the four
posts were mentioned individually in the
advertisement. The petitioners were applicants for
the post of Project Economist holding post graduate
qualification in Economics.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that they were candidates for all the four
posts optionally. If they were not found fit for the
post of Project Economist, they should have been
considered for other three posts suitably. Strong
reliance was placed on the admit card top column
which mentions the words “preference wise post
code”. All the four posts had separate codes. The
second submission was that appointments had been
made on the post of Programme Officer and
Assistant Project Officer of persons holding
qualification in Labour and Social Welfare on the
premise that it was equivalent to the course of
Personal Management and Industrial Relation
conducted by the L.N.M. Institute of Economic
3
Development and Social Change. If the conditions of
eligibility were deviated there is no reason why the
same benefit of deviation cannot be provided to the
petitioners also on basis of equivalence.
Counsel for the State submitted that there
is nothing in the advertisement to state that options
were invited with regard to the posts. In any event, a
person who did not possess the basic qualification
for a post cannot submit or claim an option right for
the same. He lastly submitted that issues of
equivalence of qualification are matters for the
employer to decide.
This Court does not find from the
advertisement that any options were invited for the
posts. If a candidate possesses qualifications for
more than one post, he could certainly have applied
for more than one post. But that is an issue which
does not concern the Court. It is the specific case of
the petitioners that they hold necessary qualification
for the post of Project Economist only being post
graduate in Economics. On their own showing that
they did not hold the basic eligibility for the other
three posts, what may or what may not have been
processed for appointment on the other three posts
does not concern the petitioners and this Court is
4
therefore not persuaded to go into those issues at
the behest of the petitioners in view of the nature of
their claim.
In any event of the matter, whether the
qualification prescribed for the post of Programme
Officer and Assistant Project Officer was equivalent
to Labour and Social Welfare and those holding the
latter qualifications met the job requirement of the
employer to hold equivalence are issues for employer
alone to decide.
There is no occasion for the Court to dwell
into this issues as it cannot be the case and it is not
the case of the petitioners that their post graduate
qualification in Economics is equivalent to post
graduate in Rural Management or MBA.
This Court finds no merit in this
application. It is accordingly dismissed.
P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)