IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1674 of 2011 FAZLE SARWAR S/O LATE ZAHIRUDDIN, PRINCIPAL INCHARGE OF GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, GOPALGANJ, R/O VILL- GWANDRAI PS- THAWE, DISTT- GOPALGANJ AT PRESENT R/O SIPAYA CAMPUS OF GOVT. POLYTECHNIC PS-BISHAMBHARPUR DISTT- GOPALGANJ-------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. PATNA 2. B.PS.C. THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECY. B.P.S.C. BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECY. B.P.S.C. BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECY, THE DEPATT. OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA---------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 29.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent State as also learned counsel for the B.P.S.C. Advertisement No. 16 of 2009 was published in many a local papers including the Hindustan on 7.3.2009. The advertisement related to appointment of Principal in Polytechnic Colleges in the State of Bihar. The Advertisement laid down the requirement with regard to qualification etc. and the procedure which had to be adopted for making such selection. This advertisement is being challenged in the year 2011 by way of the present writ application on the ground that the qualification which has been laid down in the advertisement does not confer to the requirement which has been laid down by All India Council for Technical Education (in short AICTE). There is a prayer made in the writ application that a direction by issued to the respondents to correct the same and readvertisement be made in confirmation of AICTE. The Court does not want to go into the merit of the application at such a belated stage on the ground that many a - 2 - decisions have been taken pursuant to this advertisement including recommendation of names of candidates duly selected to the State. If that is the stage where the recruitment process in furtherance to the advertisement has reached then there may not be an occasion to grant any indulgence to the petitioner by giving direction to the BPSC now to make any correction in the advertisement made in the year 2009. The above position has been indicated to the Court by learned counsel for the B.P.S.C. In the opinion of this Court it was proper for the petitioner to challenge the advertisement soon after its publication and not after the selections have already been made and right having been created in favour of all those candidates over the last two years. What has already been done cannot be undone at this point of time. There is no material to support the statement, which may have been made at the bar that no exercise has been carried out according to the information to the counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)