IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.296 of 2008 PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellants : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, Sidhartha Prasad, Advocate For the State : M/s. Lalit Kishore, AAG III Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---- Dated, the 3rd July, 2008. We heard the Senior Counsel for the appellants and the Additional Advocate General, 3 for the respondents. 2. In the case of Bihar State Unemployed ( +2 Vocational) Medical Laboratory Technician Association and others Vs. The State of Bihar & others ( CWJC No.5427 of 1997) relating to the subject advertisement, this court passed the following order: “12. In view of the recent stand taken by the Respondents in their letter dated 15th January, 1998, by which they have sent instructions to the counsel for the State and the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General, all the parties including the counsel appearing on behalf of some of the intervenors, the petitioners, the State of Bihar and the Intermediate Council, have agreed for the following consented orders: - 2 - (i) The Respondents-State will come out with corrigendum relating to appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians in different Hospitals and Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar, in continuation of its earlier advertisement published on 25th May, 1997 in different newspapers. In the said advertisement, the word „RAJYA‟ shall be deleted from clause (3) therein, so that in the eligibility criteria, while the basic qualification of I.Sc or 10+2 Science will remain intact, and the persons obtained M.L.T training from any Government recognized Institutions, are made eligible to file such applications. In the said corrigendum, the date of eligibility to apply for the post will remain the same, as was made in the advertisement dated 25th May, 1997. This means, the candidates who were eligible by the time the earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 was issued, only they can apply and not any other candidate who became eligible subsequent to the earlier advertisement. (ii) So far as equivalency of certificate obtained by any person, including +2 vocational certificates, as obtained by petitioners are concerned, if there remains any dispute, it is the State of Bihar, which will decide the equivalency. But, while deciding such equivalency of any certificate(s), including +2 vocational Certificate, they should consult from any one or other Expert Body/ Authority, including Intermediate Council/ CB.S.E./ I.C.S.E. and seek their opinion, who grant such certificate(s). - 3 - (iii) If any of the petitioners and/or other eligible candidates have already applied for appointment in pursuance of earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 and/or apply within time in pursuance of corrigendum to be published, the Respondents will consider their cases for appointments, in accordance with law, subject to eligibility. (iv) No appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician shall be made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 without publication of corrigendum, as stated above. It is expected that the Respondents will come out the corrigendum, on any early date which must be published within a period of two months. Thereafter they will fill up the post immediately within six months.” 3. That the said judgment has attained finality is not in dispute. 4. The said judgment clearly states, in the light of the corrigendum dated 05th of July, 1997, that the date of eligibility to apply for the post will remain the same as was made in the advertisement dated 25th May, 1997. It was further observed that this means that the candidates, who were eligible by the time the earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 was issued, only they could apply and not any other candidate who became eligible subsequent to the earlier advertisement. 5. The Senior counsel did not dispute the position that as - 4 - on 25th of May, 1997 the appellants did not fulfill the eligibility. However, his submission is that the applications made by the appellants pursuant to the advertisement dated 25th of May, 1997 were accepted and after completion of the examination etc., the list of successful candidates was published wherein the names of the appellants appeared. 6. We are afraid, this will not help the appellants as any mistake on the part of the authorities in accepting the applications of the appellants and permitting them to appear in the examination would not create any right in their favour as they were not eligible on the cut off date, i.e. 25th May, 1997. It needs no emphasis that for any appointment to be validly made, the eligibility must be fulfilled on the date notified in the advertisement. Since, none of the appellants, fulfilled the eligibility on the date mentioned in the advertisement, i.e. 25th May, 1997, the ultimate order not granting any relief to the appellants by the Single Judge does not call for any interference. 7. LPA is dismissed in limine accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil