IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15833 of 2010 ====================================================== Arshi Najmi D/O Najmul Hassnain R/O Samanpura, Raja Bazar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Distt.- Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission having its Office at + P.O.- Veterinary College, Patna-14 5. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, having its Office at + P.O.- Veterinary College, Patna-14 .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Respdt. Commission: Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 02-09-2011 The writ petitioner, a trained graduate, has challenged Patna High Court CWJC No.15833 of 2010 (5) dt.02-09-2011 2 / 3 2 the constitutional validity of Clause (iv) of Rule 3 of the Bihar Special Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2010. The said Rule 3 provides for eligibility for being appointed as a Teacher under the aforesaid Rules. The said Clause (iv) reads as under: - “(iv) mnwZ f”k{kd ds inksa ds fy, fcgkj enjlk f”k{kk cksMZ ls ekSyoh ¼bUVjehfM,V Lrj½ rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk ikl vFkok bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk esa 200 vadksa ds mnwZ fo’k; dh ijh{kk ds lkFk nks o’khZ; izf”k{k.k ijh{kk mŸkh.kZ gks A” Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid eligibility criteria for appointment as teacher in Urdu on the ground that though the petitioner is better qualified, the petitioner not having passed the intermediate examination of 200 marks in Urdu, she is non-suited for appointment as teacher. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar Kaushik has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that under the 2003 Rules the petitioner was eligible for appointment as teacher. She had also applied for such appointment. However, under the present set of Rules the petitioner is rendered ineligible though better qualified. The aforesaid requirement of having passed Urdu examination of 200 marks is arbitrary and makes class among one common class of candidates. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J Veeraiah and others, (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 929) and of this Court in the matter of Nand Kishore Ojha & ors. V. the State of Bihar & ors., [2004(3) PLJR 782). We see no substance in the challenge to Clause (iv) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid 2010 Rules. Patna High Court CWJC No.15833 of 2010 (5) dt.02-09-2011 3 / 3 3 The Petition is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)