Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18271 of 2011 ====================================================== Rajiv Ranjan Sinha S/O Shri Dayanand Singh, Resident of Birampur, Post- Lohra, Harnaut, District- Nalanda, Bihar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 2. Joint Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of .... .... Petitioner Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. DDC Cum Chief Executive Officer Cum District Programme Co- Ordinator Department of Rural Development Authority, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Rana Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. S.D. Sanjay A.A.G-12 Ms. Priya Gupta, A.C. to A.A.G.-12 ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
Decision
ORDER 5 04-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents-authorities to appoint the petitioner in Group-1 post on the basis of second merit list prepared and published on 28.02.2009 of the written examination conducted by the respondent authorities on 15.04.2007 in pursuance to the advertisement bearing no.1780 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006 as in merit list petitioner was ranked at serial no.145 in BC category Patna High Court CWJC No.18271 of 2011 (5) dt.04-04-2013 - 2 - and was also called for second counselling held on 21.03.2009 by the respondent authorities which he attended successfully, but in spite of that petitioner was not appointed, although persons below him in the merit list were appointed by the respondent-authorities. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration in the year 1990 from Anna Malai Unversity, Chennai and when the aforesaid Advertisement dated 06.12.2006 was published for the post of Programme Officer (Code-1.1) by the Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar he applied along with other persons, whereafter he was called for the written examination on 15.04.2007 in which he succeeded and thereafter he was called for first counselling and second counselling, latter being dated 21.03.2009, by the respondent authorities which also he attended successfully. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements and came within the serial up to which candidates of backward category were being appointed, he was not appointed and no step was taken by the authorities in spite of repeated request by the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.18271 of 2011 (5) dt.04-04-2013 - 3 - 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the requirement for the post was a degree of M.B.A or equivalent Post Graduation in Rural Management, but the petitioner did not possess the said qualification as he merely had Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration and that too from Anna Malai University which was not recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E,) and hence there was no occasion for considering the petitioner for being appointed on that post. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent from the advertisement (Annexure-5) that the requirement for the post of Programme Officer was M.B.A. or Post Graduation in Rural Management and if a person had an equivalent qualification he would be appointed only after obtaining directions of A.I.C.T.E. From the aforesaid advertisement as well as other materials on record it is quite apparent that the Post Graduation mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement included degrees and diplomas both, but the condition was that such degree or diploma should have been from a recognized Patna High Court CWJC No.18271 of 2011 (5) dt.04-04-2013 - 4 - University. 7. From letters dated 17.12.1991 and 25.11.1988 (Annexure-7 series) it is quite apparent that Annamalai University is one of the Universities recognized by the University Grant Commission and Annamalai University having been established by an Act of the Government automatically stood recognized for the purpose of employment under Central/State Governments and no formal orders for recognising such degrees and diplomas are necessary to be issued for the said purpose. 8. In the said circumstances, it becomes clear that as per the advertisement even Post Graduate Diploma holder from a recognized University was eligible for being appointed on the post concerned and the Post Graduate Diploma which the petitioner held is recognized by the State Government and the Central Government as the University had been established by the Act of the Government. 9. So far the point raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had no Post Graduation in Rural Management is concerned, it is quite apparent from letter dated 25.08.2011 issued by the Public Information Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar to the petitioner that Patna High Court CWJC No.18271 of 2011 (5) dt.04-04-2013 - 5 - 10 persons having Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management had been appointed on same posts which were advertised by the aforesaid same advertisement. Thus, it is quite apparent that the respondent authorities had been treating Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management as equivalent to the qualifications required in the advertisement. Hence, the authorities cannot discard the claim of the petitioner and take a partisan attitude against him. 10. So far the position of the petition in the merit list is concerned, the petitioner had passed in all the examinations and in the merit list of BC category he was at serial no.145, but from the information under the Right to Information Act on 25.08.2011 it clearly reveals that two persons namely Murlidhar Modi and Jitunu, both having Post Graduate in Business Management were selected although they were at Serial No.149 and 163 of the merit list of B.C. category, much below the petitioner. 11. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the attitude of the respondent-authorities towards the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary and perverse and they cannot legally be allowed to discriminate against him in such a manner although he had the required qualifications, had passed the requisite Patna High Court CWJC No.18271 of 2011 (5) dt.04-04-2013 - 6 - examination and was above several persons, who were appointed from the same advertisement, although they were below him in the merit list of the category concerned. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner in Group I post of Programme Officer on the basis of second merit list prepared on 28.02.2009. The entire process must be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (S. N. Hussain, J.) Sunil/-