IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1504 of 2011 1.Seema Patel, daughter of Kanchhedi Lal Patel, resident of Nehru Railway Colony, Quarter No.M/A- 12/A, Sagar (M.P.), presently working as Senior Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) 2.Ajay Kumar, son of Late Balwant Singh, resident of village and P.O. Bhamootar, Tahsil Mukeria, District- Hosiyarpur (Punjab) 3.Partha Banerjee, son of Shankar Kumar Banerjee, resident of Indraprastha Colony, Madhusudan Sarani, Lane No.1, Baburbandh, Purulia, P.O. and P.S.- Purulia (West Bengal), working as Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bailey Road, Patna. …………….. Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Home (Police) Department, Patna 2.The Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna 4.The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Service Commission, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna 5.The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), Bihar, Patna 6.The Director (Incharge) Forensic Science Laboratory, Bailey Road, Patna ………… Respondents ----------- 5. 24/02/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Commission and Mr.Abhinav Raj, learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing the corrigendum of advertisement, as contained in Annexure-21, which was issued in continuation of the original advertisement, as contained in 2 Annexure-15. On the requisition of the State, the Commission published the advertisement (Annexure-15) inviting applications for appointment on various posts of Assistant Director-cum-Senior Scientific Officer under the Home (Police) Department. The said advertisement prescribed minimum qualification as M.Sc. in Chemistry and other subjects as per the post notified with minimum Second Division marks and also prescribed for five years experience in any Forensic Science Laboratory. Against this advertisement, petitioners moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.2872 of 2010. The said writ application was considered and disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 22.2.2010 (Annexure-16). The submissions of the petitioners noticed by the Bench were as follows :- “The submission is that the petitioners hold the qualification of M.Sc. Forensic Science which is not one of the qualifications prescribed but is limited to M.Sc. in Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Bio- Chemistry and others. It is submitted that all the aforesaid constitute ingredients and eligibility of the course of M.Sc. Forensics and, therefore, respondents should be directed to 3 reconsider inclusion of the qualifications of M.Sc. Forensic Science also.” Thereafter, in respect of scope of interference by this Court in the conditions of eligibility to be prescribed for appointment, the observations of this Court were as follows : “The qualifications to be prescribed in an advertisement are the prerogative of the employer. It is not for the Courts to re-write the conditions of eligibility provided for in the advertisement unless it be contrary to any statutory provisions which does not appear to be the case presently.” In the circumstances, in view of the stand of the petitioners, this Court allowed the petitioners to file representation before the respondents making full technical disclosure of their qualifications etc. This Court observed that it was expected that the representation of the petitioners would be considered appropriately well in advance before the last date fixed in the advertisement for submission of applications. Accordingly, petitioners filed representation, as contained in Annexure-17, before the Chairman of the Commission. Annexure-18 is the reminder sent by the 4 petitioners to him, and Annexure-19 is the representation filed before the Principal Secretary, Home (P) Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation has not been considered and the Commission has come up with a corrigendum of the advertisement without considering the same. First of all, it may be noticed that the grievance of the petitioners before this Court earlier was that in the qualification for the post, though M.Sc. in Chemistry and in other branches were included but M.Sc. Forensic Science was not included. It was submitted that all the aforesaid constitute ingredients and eligibility of the course of M.Sc. Forensic and therefore, respondents should be directed to consider inclusion of M.Sc. Forensic Science also. This was specific prayer of the petitioners before this Court earlier. From Annexure-21, it appears that the prayer of the petitioners have been allowed by the respondents. Annexure-21 shows that in respect of each of the posts advertised, besides, M.Sc. in the concerned subjects, in the alternative M.Sc. 5 Forensic Science with Second Division has also been included as an eligibility qualification required. Thus, it is apparent that the representation of the petitioners has been considered by the respondents and accordingly corrigendum has been issued. But the grievance of the petitioners remains. The reason being that in the corrigendum, qualification of M.Sc. in the concerned subject or M.Sc. in Forensic Science with Second Division has been mentioned as first eligibility and the second eligibility has been mentioned as five years experience in any Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in the earlier advertisements for the post, as contained in Annexure-6 series, experience was required only in respect of candidates having M.Sc. in concerned subjects and not for candidates having M.Sc. in Forensic Science. In Annexure-6 series, advertisements of 2002, 2007 and 2008 are annexed. From these three advertisements, it does appear that the requirement of experience was only with respect to the candidates who were M.Sc. in 6 specific subject i.e. M.Sc. in Chemistry and not for the candidates having M.Sc. in Forensic Science which was an alternative qualification for eligibility. He has also referred to Annexure-20 to show that as recent as in 2010 for appointment of Senior Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory four years experience has been prescribed for the candidates having M.Sc. in Chemistry and not for candidates having M.Sc. in Forensic Science. He submits that M.Sc. Forensic Science is more specialized qualification than M.Sc. in any other subject of Science stream. Therefore, so far as candidates having M.Sc. in any of the branches of Science stream are concerned, they may be required to have experience but the candidates, who are M.Sc. in Forensic Science should not be required to have experience for the eligibility as was done in the earlier advertisements. He also submits that in fact petitioners have experience of working in the Forensic Science Laboratory on contract basis and therefore, they have the qualification and experience and limit of five years experience should be relaxed in 7 their cases. This issue was not raised by the petitioners before this Court earlier. Since in the eligibility qualification column in the advertisement M.Sc. Forensic Science was not mentioned, therefore, they had confined their prayer for inclusion of the same in the advertisement. Obviously, they had made that claim in the light of earlier advertisements published by the respondents in 2001, 2002 and 2007. It is true that it is the prerogative of the employer to law down minimum qualification for consideration for appointment of the candidates on public posts that too, when the appointment has to be made on specialized post. In the earlier order of this Court itself, it has been observed that “the qualifications to be prescribed in an advertisement are the prerogative of the employer. It is not for the Courts to re- write the conditions of eligibility provided for in the advertisement unless it be contrary to any statutory provisions which does not appear to be the case presently”. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to issue any mandamus to the respondents to 8 waive the requirement of five years experience in respect of candidates having qualification of M.Sc. Forensic Science. But surely, this Court can direct the respondents to re-consider the matter, as from earlier advertisements, as contained in Annexure-6 series, it does appear that in respect of the candidates having qualification of M.Sc. Forensic Science, requirement of experience was not laid down. Respondents will be well advised to consider whether now they want it or not and if they want it, then, whether the working of the petitioners on contract basis in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna can be taken as fulfilling that requirement. It is expected that the respondents shall consider the matter in right earnest and take a final decision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that otherwise, petitioners are highly qualified and experienced in their job. This can also be considered by the respondents as a mitigating factor in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that all the petitioners have submitted their applications before the 9 respondents in response to the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-15 read with Annexure-21. In the circumstances, if the respondents intend to waive the requirement of experience in respect of the petitioners or other similarly situated candidates having qualification of M.Sc. Forensic Science, respondents will be at liberty to consider their cases on the basis of the pending applications of the petitioners and others, if available with them. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)