IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6150 of 2010 GOPAL PRASAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ORAIYA, P.S. SONO, DISTRICT JAMUI AT PRESENT VINOD NAGAR CHIRAGORA, DHANBAD. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA. 4. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 20.5.2010 This petitioner‟s application for consideration of appointment as a Motor Vehicle Inspector has been rejected for two reasons. Firstly, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner possesses a diploma in production technology which is not in consonance with the condition of the advertisement. The second objection is that the experience certificate does not mention that the petitioner has knowledge of repair of vehicles. The second issue is settled by a decision of this Court in CWJC No. 5859 of 2010 and analogous cases disposed of on 23.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection taken by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission is unwarranted in view of annexures 10 and 11. Annexure-10 is a letter by the Director, All India Council for Technical Education in which it is said as follows: “With reference to the application for equivalence forwarded by your office on the above mentioned subject, it is to inform that “diploma programme in the production engineering 2 approved by AICTE may be treated as equivalent to diploma in mechanical engineering for the purpose of professional employment only.” The letter was addressed to the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Church Road, Ranchi and the subject matter concerned was equivalence of diploma production engineering with diploma in mechanical engineering. Annexure-11 is a letter by the Science and Technology Department, Bihar, Patna by the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education which reads as follows: “This is to certify that the diploma in production engineering is essentially a diploma in mechanical engineering with special emphasis on production processes.” The course of the diploma in production engineering is of 3½ years course (Sandwitch). Therefore, the holders of this production engineering diploma are compete normally for all posts for this qualification of diploma in mechanical engineering is required.” The counsel for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission has submitted that annexure-A series appears to be doubtful in view of the fact that the slash after „mechanical‟ has been changed into brackets; as well as for the reason that the mark sheet also indicates that the petitioner has a degree in production technology diploma. The simple case of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission is that the petitioner does not fulfil the educational qualification for the purposes of being eligible for appearing in the interview to be held shortly. An interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of one of the 20 persons whose forms were accepted by the Bihar Staff 3 Selection Commission. The main argument on behalf of the intervenor is that Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the notification issued under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act dated 12.6.1989 prescribes the minimum qualification which is (1) minimum general educational qualification of pass in 10th standard; and (2) a diploma in automobile engineering (three years cours) or a diploma in mechanical engineering awarded by the State Board of Techincal Education, three years course. Apart from the objection raised that the petitioner has the qualification as required under the Act several other questions have been raised by the intervenor which are basically a challenge to the orders and judgment passed earlier by this Court in CWJC No. 5859 of 2010 which in the opinion of this Court already stand answered in the judgments delivered on this subject by this Court. As such this Court rejects the submissions raised by the intervenor on other issues. As far as the intervention application is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner submits that it should be rejected on the ground that interest of the intervenor does not clash with the petitioner and he will not be affected by the order passed by this Court. In any event considering the fact that the objections raised by the intervenor are already taken care of by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and submissions had been made by the counsel for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission with respect to the issues in the writ application no purpose will be served in allowing the intervention application. Coming to the main issue in this writ application which 4 is whether the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner are valid or not, this Court has to say that it is prerogative of the State and the Department concerned to lay down the qualifications for a particular post. The question whether the diploma in automobile engineering, diploma in mechanical engineering and diploma in production technology are equivalent to each other is a question which should be decided by the State Government in consultation with the technical body. Besides which even if it is decided that a diploma certificate in automobile or in mechanical engineering and production technology are equivalent to each other, it would still be the prerogative of the department concerned to lay down the criteria for filling the post as per the requirement and the nature of the job in question. Therefore, equivalence of the degree diploma is distinguishable and cannot be a ground for accepting the forms of the petitioner and the concerned authorities/department may still take a decision to include persons having a particular diploma or degree for the purposes of employment on a particular post. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner that the three diplomas are academically equivalent to each other is not very relevant for the purposes of this case. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)