IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12834 of 2009 INLAND FISHERING SOCIETIES & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr A.N.Banerjee,Advocate For the State : Mr Subhash Pd. Singh, GA 8 with Mr Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, AC To GA 8 ------ 2. 08.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The respondents published an advertisement on 14.6.2009 inviting applications for the post of “Subject Matter Specialist” in the Department of Agriculture on contract basis. The minimum qualification prescribed was Graduate from a University or recognised Institution in Agriculture, Gardening, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. The petitioners who claim to hold qualification of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Industrial Fish and Fisheries Vocational Course from different Universities of Bihar, also applied. Non-consideration of their case on grounds of lack of equivalence between the Graduate course and vocational course compelled them to approach this Court in CWJC No. 9167 of 2009 which was disposed with a direction that any representation by them should be considered in accordance with law. The petitioners represented when the impugned order dated 12.8.2009 has been passed holding that the advertisement stipulated that it was only Graduates in the defined discipline who were eligible to apply and that a qualification of a Graduate in Vocational Course was not provided for therein. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the qualification of B.Sc .Fisheries and the Vocational qualification 2 held by them are equivalent. The course completed by the petitioners is also a duly recognised course conducted by the University and recognised by the University Grant Commission as also by the Chancellor. Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that qualification of vocational course in question was considered equivalent to regular Graduate qualification for purposes of appointment by certain other organizations of the Central Government. The State Government has itself accepted the said qualification and made appointments on other posts. Learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned order to urge that there could not be consideration of any candidate not fulfilling the express conditions of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement as that would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India rendering the consideration/selection arbitrary. The qualifications for selection and appointment to a post are to be prescribed by the employer. It is the employer who shall decide what kind of person with what qualification it requires, keeping in mind the needs of the employer with regard to nature of duties and works to be taken from the employee whom it proposes to recruit. It shall not be jurisdiction of the Court to superimpose conditions of eligibility beyond that prescribed by the employer. Questions of equivalence of a qualification with that prescribed in the advertisement are matters for the employer to decide after consideration of all aspects of the matter including the nature of the course, 3 contents and expertise imparted therein. Any similar decision with regard to the course by the other government institutions is a matter to be considered by the authorities and it is not for the Court to take over the role of the employer or re-define or re- write the advertisement. In AIR 2002 SC 2642 (State of Rajasthan & ors. Vrs Lata Arun) it has been held at Paragraph 12 as follows:- “12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service matters are to be considered by the appropriate authority it is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” The question in this writ application is not whether the course attended by the petitioners is a recognised course or not. The question is if the employer wishes to recruit persons with said qualification. To that extent this Court finds it difficult to issue any direction to the respondents by a mandamus to consider the candidate of the petitioners. But this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for a direction to the respondents to consider the issue of equivalence of the Graduate course prescribed in the advertisement with the vocational qualification claimed by the petitioners. Liberty is therefore granted to the petitioners to file a detailed representation enclosing all materials in support of the recognised and valid qualification possessed by them in B.Sc. Industrial Fish and Fisheries Vocational Course which is stated 4 to be recognised by the University, University Grant Commission and the Chancellor quite apart from certain Central Government Institutions for the purpose of appointment. It be noted that it is their further case that persons with such qualifications are in fact being appointed by the State Government also. If the petitioners file such representation within a period of one month from today this Court requires the respondent State Government to take a policy decision expeditiously on the issue of equivalence of the qualification of Graduate in Agriculture, Gardening, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries with that of B.Sc. (Hons.) Industrial Fish and Fisheries Vocational Course. It is at the risk of repetition that this Court reiterates that decision shall be taken by not by any individual officer of the State Government but at the level of the State Government itself. This Court hopes and expects that the State Government shall take an early decision in the matter so that the claim of the petitioners is not frustrated by sheer inaction on the part of the authorities of the State Government. Since the direction is being issued by this Court to the State Government itself this Court hopes and trusts that orders of this Court shall be duly honoured and complied with in time failing which this Court may be constrained to take serious view of the matter should the petitioners come again complaining sheer inaction on the part of the State Government on their representation. The writ petition stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 5