IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10697 of 2010 ====================================================== Om Prakash & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukund Jee For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc19) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 08-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The two petitioners were applicants to be considered for appointment as Agricultural Advisors from amongst persons who were considered progressive farmers by the State Government. The petitioners applied in response of the same. They now seek to question the conditions of the advertisement contending that the definition of a progressive farmer has not been given in the advertisement and the counter affidavit also does not help the same. Certain more submissions were sought to be made from the advertisement with regard to the methodology for the appointment. Counter affidavit at paragraph-16 states that the two petitioners were also considered disclosing their rank and marks secured concluding that they could not qualify. Patna High Court CWJC No.10697 of 2010 (3) dt.08-11-2011 2 As the nomenclature ‘agricultural advisor’ signifies, it is a technical term. Who is more qualified to be declared as a progressive farmer having the expertise and capacity to inculcate good farming habits in other farmers is a matter for experts in the department of agriculture in the Government to decide and not for the Court to substitute its views over that of the executive. If specific allegations had been made that those appointed cannot by any stretch of logic or reasoning, even by common sense be classified as progressive farmers or if the petitioners had impleaded them as parties and then leveled allegations that his produce, size of the land holding, methodology of the agriculture was superior to those selected, there may or may not be occasion for the Court to go into such issues. There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)