IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9401 of 2011 ============================================= Shiv Shambhu Chakrawarti, s/o- Late Umashanker Prasad, r/o-Mohalla- Sanjay Nagar, Road No. 2, Bigrahpur, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 2. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG-2 For the Board : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha. ============================================= 5 16-09-2011 Petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (for short „the Board‟) and its officials to appoint him on the post of Junior Account Clerk/Bill Clerk in B.C. Category. Background facts, in short, are that the Respondent- Board invited application by Employment Notice No.3/2010 (Annexure- 1) for appointment on the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk. Apart from other details, it is relevant to notice that the educational qualification for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk was as under: “Graduate in Science with Math or Graduate in Arts with math or Graduate in Commerce from any recognized university.” Petitioner, findings himself eligible for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk, applied for the said post. Petitioner holds graduation degree in Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA). 2 Petitioner was thereafter invited for appearing at the written test. Petitioner appeared at the said test whereafter he was declared successful. All successful candidates at the written test including the petitioner were invited for appearing at computer literacy test (CLT). It is the case of the petitioner that after conclusion of the entire process of selection, he was finally declared successful for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk in B.C. Category as his name stood at serial no.10 under the said category in the list of successful candidates published/notified by the respondents. Since, no appointment letter was issued to him, on query, it revealed that on scrutiny/verification of documents, the petitioner was not found educationally qualified for the post in question which propelled him to file the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner holds Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) degree from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGONU). Referring to Annexure-6, it is contended that the petitioner had pursued the curriculum which consists of subject codified as CS-60. It is contended with reference to the syllabus of the said course that CS-60 consists of Foundation Course in Mathematics in Computing. It is contended that the said Foundation Course includes study of Elements of Differential Calculus, Integral Calculus, Drawing Curves, Solutions of Polynomial Equations and other like topics which can be said to be more than adequate for treating him educationally eligible as per the educational requirement set out in the advertisement. By filing a supplementary affidavit, it is contended that the petitioner did invite the attention of the authorities to the mark 3 sheet issued by the IGNOU which demonstrates that the petitioner pursued the said course (Code CS-60) at the Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) level. It is contended with reference to paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit that some persons having passed in MTE-01, MTE-04, & MTE-05 have been selected. It is thus contended that the respondents have acted in a wholly unjust manner in denying appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the selection process undergone by him whereat he was declared successful. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and resisted the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents drawing attention of the Court to the advertisement submitted that as per the advertisement (Annexure-1) a candidate for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk is required to be a Graduate in Science with Math or Graduate in Arts with Math or Graduate in Commerce from any recognized university. It does not admit of Math at the Graduation level as a subsidiary or a foundation course. In the matter of direct recruitment, if the educational requirement has been spelt out then the authority would be justified in insisting on the fulfilment of those educational requirements. It is contended with reference to Annexure-5 that if any discrepancies is/are found in course of certificate verification or if the Candidate is found ineligible in terms of advertisement, his candidature was liable to be cancelled forthwith. After publication of the result of CLT, a selection committee was constituted for making final recommendation for appointment. The said committee in its meeting held on 06.04.2011 went through the entire records and prepared a list of 4 candidates merit wise/category wise and recommended to call upon the candidates for verification of certificates/documents and eligibility strictly in terms of the advertisement. Committees were constituted by the Respondent-Board for verification of certificate(s) of the candidates. The said committee(s) verified the certificates/documents and eligibility of the candidates empanelled strictly in terms of advertisement whereat several discrepancies were found. It was noticed that several candidates who were called in for verification of certificates/documents for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk were not possessing Graduate degree with Math as a subject as per the terms of the advertisement. Altogether 20 such candidates were shortlisted including the petitioner. The Committee, on a consideration of their cases, rejected their candidature as they had no Graduation degree with Math or Graduation in Commerce as per the advertisement. The proceeding of the committee held on 20.05.2011 has been enclosed as Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit. It is contended that the candidature of the petitioner and 19 others were cancelled since they were not found educationally qualified/eligible for the post as per the educational requirement spelt out in the advertisement for the post(s) in question. Learned counsel for the respondents further highlighted that the selection process has already been completed and the candidates held successful and found eligible after verification of their documents/educational eligibility have already been offered appointment and, as such, this Court may not interfere with the said selection process, particularly when there is no allegation of mala fide and that the case of the petitioner was objectively 5 considered with reference to the educational qualification strictly in terms of the advertisement. Having heard the rival submissions, it appears from perusal of the advertisement (Annexure-1) that the candidate for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/ Bill Clerk was required to be Graduate in Science with Mathematics or Graduate in Arts with Mathematics or Graduate in Commerce from any recognized University. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in any one of such category. His claim is rested on the degree of Bachelor of Computer Applications from I.G.I.N U. It appears that the course pursued by the petitioner includes foundational course of Mathematics in computing. It is a foundational course and/or subsidiary thereof. There is thus no dispute that the petitioner does not possess the required educational qualification as per the advertisement. In a case of direct recruitment, if the employer has come out with a minimum educational qualification required for any particular post then they can bona fidely and/or reasonably insist on fulfilling of those educational/eligibility requirements. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner was considered by a body of officers whereafter it was found that the petitioner like 19 others did not fulfill the said educational requirement in terms of the advertisement. From the materials on record, it is further evident that empanelment in the select list was subject to the verification/scrutiny of documents satisfying fulfillment of educational eligibility. The claim of the petitioner and 19 others was rejected, on scrutiny, on the ground that they did not fulfil the educational requirement as per the advertisement. The employer very well knows 6 the nature of job to be offered and the basic educational requirement therefor. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, normally does not interfere with this aspect of the matter to substitute its own view that a candidate having pursued a course which consists of foundational course dealing with diverse shades of Mathematics would measure up to the minimum educational requirement(s) spelt out in the advertisement. There is no controversy in the present case that petitioner did not possess Graduate degree in Science with Mathematics or Graduate in Arts with Mathematics or Graduate in Commerce. It is further seen that not only the petitioner but several other candidates were found/held educationally ineligible as per the terms of advertisement after scrutiny/verification of their documents. In absence of any allegation of mala fide against the respondents this Court finds no reason to interfere with the consideration of the matter by the respondents whereafter the petitioner was found educationally ineligible for the post in question. It has also been contended with reference to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit that to the knowledge of the petitioner, some candidates having passed MTE 01, MTE 04 and MTE 05 have been selected. On perusal of the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit, it appears that pleadings made therein are vague. Based on these pleadings, it cannot be said that petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of scrutiny/verification of the documents and offering appointment. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. 7 There shall be no order as to costs. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)