IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11473 of 2009 LALAN KUMAR & ors. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11865 of 2009 CHITRANJAN KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 13/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for Bihar Education Project Council. The council for purposes of technical supervision and quality assurance etc. of the civil constructions being made under a Government Programme in interior village of School buildings invited applications for appointment of personnel on contract basis. The controversy relates to whether their honorarium was fixed at a flat rate of 2.5% of the estimated value of the building or was it fixed at a maximum amount of 2.5%. Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ applications sought to persuade this Court that the advertisement stated that honorarium at a flat rate of 2.5% of the cost was to be paid. Some of them were so paid. The subsequent reduction of the same below 2.5% was arbitrary and not sustainable. Learned counsel for the Project Council urged from his counter affidavit that the policy of the Council provided for a maximum honorarium of 2.5%. 2 The Council retains the discretion to pay any amount lesser or maximum up to 2.5% depending on the extent of the work, finances involved, nature of supervision etc. For this learned counsel apart from the counter affidavit also placed reliance on certain Annexures to the writ petition itself disclosing the policy decision more particularly Annexure-2 to CWJC No. 11473 of 2009. He contended that in pursuance of this policy, if any functionary of the State acted beyond the authority by publishing the advertisement obliterating or deleting the words ‘maximum’ before 2.5%, the Council is not bound by it. This Court finds that the Government policy for engagement of persons like the petitioners narrating all its details in a letter dated 27.3.2003 at Annexure-2 to CWJC No. 11473 of 2009 explicitly states that they were to be engaged for technical supervision and monitoring at a maximum of 2.5% of the estimated cost of construction. Any error committed by any functionary of the Council or the State by publishing advertisement, inviting applications in excess of the policy decision deleting or obliterating the words ‘maximum’ cannot lay a foundation for cause of action before the writ Court. Moreover, the relationship between the parties is purely contractual. The 3 jurisdiction of this Court to interfere shall be extremely circumscribed and shall warrant interference only in the event that the action of the Respondents was completely arbitrary, devoid of logic or reason, policy and legitimate expectations of those they had invited. A similar question came up before this Court in CWJC No. 13762 of 2009 in which also similar arguments were advanced that the honorarium cannot be reduced from 2.5% to 1% and it must be paid at 2.5% only. The matter was heard at length, whereafter being unable to persuade the Court to interfere the writ petition was withdrawn to pursue departmental remedies on 30.10.2009. This Court finds no reason to arrive at any different conclusion in the present writ applications. They are, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)