IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2752 of 2009 KUNDAN KISHOR RAJAK, SON OF SRI DINESHWAR RAJAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MISROLIA, POLICE STATION SAKARA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA (SAMASTIPUR), THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA (SAMASTIPUR), DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 3. THE REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA (SAMASTIPUR), DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 4. DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA (SAMASTIPUR), DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 5. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, RECRUITMENT, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA (SAMASTIPUR), DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For Rajendra Agricultural University : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. V.R. Bharti, Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate --------- 3. 25.3.2009 Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Counsel for Rajendra Agricultural University. The dispute in this case only relates to the fulfilment of the eligibility condition for appointment on the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the department of Entomology in Rajendra Agricultural University, hereinafter referred to as the „University‟. On the earlier occasion the Counsel for the petitioner was quite emphatic that in the University there has always been a consistent practice that the persons holding qualifications in the subject of Zoology have invariably been appointed/posted to hold teaching post in the 2 department of Entomology. Counsel in this context had also referred to specific case of Dr. Prabhat Kumar in paragraph no.10 of the writ application as also cases of Dr. M.L.Agrawal and Mrs. Mishra in paragraph no.20 of the writ application. In fact Counsel for the petitioner had also relied on an interim order to contend that this Court in a similar situation in an interim order of this Court dated 24.1.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.892 of 2007 has already held the equivalence of such qualification to be permissible for the purposes of direct appointment. This Court, in fact, noticing the aforementioned submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner had passed a reasoned order on 28.2.2009 in this case in the following terms :- “……………… Counsel for the petitioner would submit that University has departed from the old practice and precedent issuing the advertisement and considering the candidature for filling up the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the discipline of Entomology, in as much as in past even the candidates having Master‟s Decree in the subject of Zoology had been considered eligible. In this respect he would cite illustrative case of the appointment of Dr. Prabhat Kumar on the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor (Entomology) vide Advertisement No. 1/2005 and 2/2006 dated 22.6.2006 or in the transfer of Dr. M.N. Agrawal and Mrs. Mishra, holding the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the Department of Zoology to the Department of Entomology in the faculty of agriculture, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa where in according to him there was no barrier in treating the 3 candidates possessing the decree of M. Sc. Zoology being incapable and disentitled to hold the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor (Entomology). He would therefore, submit that the expression “relevant subject” in the context of the discipline of Entomology will necessarily include the subject of Zoology, as they are co-related subject. From the advertisement in question, it appears that though the University had reserved power for giving relaxation of certain marks to the specified category of candidates, there was no power vested even in the University to relax the requirement of fulfilling the eligibility conditions as with regard to qualification. In that view of the matter, the only question to be gone into this case is as to whether the petitioner is qualified in terms of the advertisement for the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor-cum- Junior Scientist in the Department of Entomology ? Once it is held by the University that every post Graduate in the subject of Zoology is also entitled to be considered against the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the Department of Entomology, it will have to infact recast and re-advertise the advertisement in question because not every one like the petitioner was working in the University or was aware of this precedent including the cases of Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Dr. Agrawal or Dr. Mrs. Mishra. In that view of the matter this Court, would direct the Respondent-University to file a comprehensive counter affidavit explaining the scope of the subject of Zoology vis-à- vis Entomology and make it clear as to whether each and every post graduate in the subject of Zoology would automatically qualify for being considered and appointed on the post of Junior Scientist-cum- Assistant Professor in the Department of Entomology. 4 Since the interview for the said post is scheduled to be held on 3rd of March, 2009, this Court would not stay the operation of such interview but then it is made clear that if the petitioner succeeds in this writ application he will be interviewed separately along with all others having similar qualification of M.Sc. Zoology ……………” In the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the University, now a clear stand has been taken that the department of Entomology is a super specialty in which appointment of teaching staff can only be made who have a post graduation qualification in the subject of Entomology. Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the University while explaining the position with the help of the counter affidavit would also make it clear that it is only a graduate in Agriculture Science, holding the degree of B.Sc. Agriculture, who can become eligible for specialization in the subject of Entomology and that is how whenever the University would require a teaching staff in the subject of Entomology, the candidate will have to possess the degree of B.Sc. in Agriculture with the degree of post graduation in the subject of Entomology. The plain and simple stand of the learned Counsel for the University is that since the petitioner does not possess the qualification of either B.Sc. Agriculture or post graduation in the subject of Entomology, he cannot be considered eligible for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the department of Entomology of the University as laid down in the 5 advertisement. Faced with this situation, Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to rely on some past cases including one of Mr. Shamshad Ali, whose marks sheet has been produced by a supplementary affidavit filed today to contend that he was a student of Zoology and his service is being utilized in the University on the teaching post in the subject of Entomology. This Court can not look such pleadings with reference to Md. Shamshad Ali for a simple reason that the case of the petitioner with regard to discrimination as asserted in paragraph nos.10 and 20 of the writ petition has already been answered in paragraph nos.13 and 22 of the counter affidavit and thereafter a new case cannot be allowed to be made out on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed after the University has already filed its counter affidavit. The supplementary affidavit filed today by the petitioner in course of hearing of the case if entertained, no writ petition can be ever decided by this Court because once the plea raised by the writ petitioner in the main writ petition is answered by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit any new plea can only be raised by the petitioner by taking permission of the Court. The practice of filing indiscriminate and successive supplementary affidavit and that too without obtaining permission of the Court can be encouraged which would result into one unending story. As with regard to the cases of discrimination pleaded 6 in paragraph nos.10 and 20 of the writ petition, the University has explained that Prabhat Kumar about whom the petitioner had claimed to be qualified in the subject of Zoology and yet appointed in the department of Entomology in the University, the facts were not correct in as much as the said Prabhat Kumar was not only holding the degree B.Sc. Agriculture but had also possessed M.Sc. degree from University of AIT Thailand where he had specialized Agriculture system, IPM, Entomology as stood supported from the certificates in Annexure C series to the counter affidavit. The University has also satisfactorily explained that the case of Dr. M.L. Agrawal and Mrs. Mishra as explained in paragraph no.20 was not of direct appointment in the department of Entomology rather they were inducted by way of absorption when this University had abolished the department of Zoology by merging it with the department of Entomology. In that view of the matter this Court cannot look into the marks sheet of Md. Shamshad Ali for deciding the dispute in question. Thus, there can be no difficulty for this Court in dismissing this writ application on the simple proposition that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Professor in Entomology. This Court cannot also relax the qualifications and issue a direction for considering the case of the petitioner in isolation because in that case other candidates not possessing the requisite 7 qualification as laid down in the advertisement would stand denied of such an equal opportunity in public employment. If such procedure is allowed to be followed in the case of appointment, the whole purpose of advertisement would be frustrated because only a fortunate and skilful candidate may approach this court and get the qualification relaxed for himself by excluding the other general candidates who did not apply for such post because of lack educational qualifications and eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement. It must be recorded that in the statements of facts in the counter affidavit of the University the respondents have disclosed that cases of persons like the petitioner who too were not holding the post graduate qualification in the subject of Entomology were rejected in course of short listing for interview. That being so, when there is no dispute that the subject of Entomology is super specialty and the candidates possessing post graduation there in are alone to be considered eligible in terms of the advertisement, the prayer of the petitioner for being considered for the said post by virtue of his being a graduate and post graduate in the subject of Zoology is wholly misconceived and must be rejected. Before parting with this Court must express its anguish and concern that the petitioner had made an attempt to mislead this Court by relying on an interim order dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 9) for the purposes of obtaining a similar 8 interim order in his favour for being allowed to appear in interview. It has to be noted that the said interim order had already lost its value on much before the day this writ application was filed. It is unfurtunate that the petitioner had annexed an interim order dated 24.1.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.892 of 2007 while filing the writ application on 27.2.2009, whereas in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been made clear that the said writ application C.W.J.C.No.892 of 2007 had already stood dismissed on 18.1.2008. This practice adopted by the petitioner needs to be deprecated and accordingly this Court while dismissing this writ application would also impose a cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the University within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )