IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14637 of 2010 1. Smt.Indira Kumari, wife of Sri Bindeshwar Rai Resident of village P.O. Tarajivar Paranjivar, p.s. Hathauri, Distt. Muzafarpur. 2. Smt. Indu Kumari wife of Sri Shiva Shankar Kumar R.O.V Koriyahi, P.O. Rajkhand, P.S. Aurai, Dist-Muzaffarpur. 3. Smt. Kiran Kumari Wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Thakur R.O.V Dumri, P.O. Dumri, P.S. Katra, Distt. Muzaffrpur. 4. Smt. Seema Kumari Wife of Sri Ashok Kumar, R.O.V/P.O Rajkhand, P.S. Aurai, Distt. Muzaffarpur. 5. Smt. Sarika Kumari Wife of Sri Manish Kumar, R.O.V/P.O. Bhadai, P.S. Hathauri, Dist-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Level Selection Committee through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur. 6. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarpur. 7. District Superintendent of Education Muzaffarpur. 8. District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 4 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shivam Singh learned A.C to A.A.G-1. Under the resolution of Government dated 10.06.2010 as contained in Annexure-1, the posts of Anganbari Supervisors have to be filled up from two sources, namely (i) 75 % vacancies have to be filled up through direct recruitment process and (ii) 25 % have to be filled up from amongst Anganbari Sevikas having ten years of experience. Petitioners and the other aspirants have not challenged this policy decision. However, it is submitted that since most of the Anganbari Centers have been set up in the State within ten years, therefore, most of the Anganbari Sevikas, like the petitioners, are deprived of the opportunity to get appointment as Supervisor due to not having requisite ten years experience as Anganbari Sevikas. 2 The petitioners want that this Court should direct the State Government to relax this requirement of ten years experience as Anganbari Sevikas so that they also may become eligible for selection. In the matter of appointment, an employer has to decide as to with eligibility and with what requirement the posts under him has to be filled up. It is the employer who has absolute right to fix up the eligibility and suitability of candidates required for service on different posts under him. Normally this Court cannot form an opinion of its own with regard to the eligibility requirements and superimpose its views on the decision of the Government as an employer. It is not the case of the petitioner that Anganbari Sevikas were not appointed in the State at all prior to ten years on that such requirement is arbitrary, unreasonable or against public interest. Their case is only that since large number of centers have been set up recently the sevikas appointment therein do not have experience of ten years. This is entirely within the domain of the State Government to consider. It is not appropriate for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the State Government to change its policy decision in this regard. In support of this view Mr. Singh has rightly referred to the observations of this Court made in paragraph 13 of a judgment in the case of Manju Devi vs. State of Bihar Ors. [PLJR 2010 (3) 1012]. This writ application is dismissed. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)