IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1824 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 16/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement dated 8.1.2009, as appended at annexure-1. It specifies the maximum age as 65 years on the cut-off date of 1.1.2008 for contractual appointment of Village Extension Workers. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that earlier on 10.6.2008 another advertisement had been issued which fixed the minimum age as 21 years on the cut-off date of 1.1.2008 and the maximum of 45 years. Learned counsel fairly acknowledges that this advertisement has subsequently been cancelled and fresh advertisement issued. The illegality urged is that the corrigendum published by the Department on 21.11.2008 at annexure-4 provides that the other conditions of the advertisement dated 8.1.2009 shall remain the same as the advertisement dated 10.6.2008. This necessarily includes the maximum age of 45 years fixed under the earlier advertisement. It is further urged that the enhancement of the age limit to 65 years was 2 arbitrary and it shall impinge on the consideration of the petitioners for the appointment who are agriculture graduates. It is next urged that providing a maximum age limit of 65 years for appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Service Code. The appointment was a public appointment and, therefore, had to be fair and reasonable and not to be done arbitrarily by fixing such an enhanced age of eligibility. That the petitioners shall now be pitted for selection against more candidates enhancing the arena of competition. On the own admission of the petitioners, the advertisement dated 10.6.2008 came to be annulled. Once the advertisement was annulled, all conditions therein lost its relevance. Even if the corrigendum dated 20.11.2008 be invoked, all that Clause-2 of the same provides is that the cut-off date for purposes of fixation of age under the advertisement shall remain the same, i.e., 1.1.2008. There is no occasion for this Court to read the corrigendum as controlling the conditions of the advertisement to read down the maximum qualifying age as 45 by incorporation. The advertisement was for appointment of Village Extension Workers. This Court is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that their primary 3 duties are to help agriculturists at the field level. The advertisement itself provides that the appointment was contractual in nature. If the appointment is contractual in nature, the respondents are at liberty to fix reasonable qualifications and conditions for the same. The provisions of the Bihar Service Code shall not come into operation as the persons appointed shall not have the status of government servants. This Court is unable to hold that such an appointment on contract is a ‘public appointment’. All that the Government seeks to do is ‘to have a wider range of selection for achieving its social objective programmes’ and the petitioner appears to be apprehensive of facing a larger competition for selection. What shall be the conditions for such appointment is for the appointing authority to decide based upon its requirements and not for this Court to determine and impose on the appointing authority. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)