IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.344 of 2011. 1.The State Of Bihar . 2.The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Secretary cum-Agriculture Production Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar. 4.The Director, Agriculture, Bihar. 5.The Joint Director cum-Controller, Weights and Measures, Raja Bazar, Patna… Respondent……... Appellants. Versus 1.Basudeo Prasad son of Dukharan Singh, village Khaprail Chak, P.S.Parsa Bazar, District Patna 2.Harsh Nath Ram son of Sri Sadha Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Khalasi P.S.Buxar Town, District Buxar …Petitioner…Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, Sr. Adv. A.A.G.III Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.III. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Bijay Bihari Sinha, Adv. 4. 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent writ-petitioners. Petitioners’ claim has been accepted by the writ court on the ground that an executive decision by the State Government issued on 4th March 1989 cannot stand in the way of the petitioners to be considered for appointment by way of promotion on the post of Inspector, Weights and Measures. The appellants have challenged the order of writ court dated 30th November 2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 5 of 2007 on the ground that the writ court did not take notice of the facts mentioned in the executive circular dated 4th March 1989 which clarified that only graduates could be appointed to the post of Inspector, Weights & Measures under the 1960 Rules, as amended in 1974. In other words, the stand of the State is that the circular has not taken a contrary view to the legal position in the Rules of 1988 or even the 2 earlier Rules, as modified in 1974, that only a graduate could be appointed to the post of Inspector. On perusal it is fund that the Rules of 1960, as amended in 1974 support the case of appellants. Rule 25 substituted since 13th February 1974 clearly stipulates that no person shall be appointed to various posts mentioned in the said Rule, including that of Inspector, unless he is a graduate in Science or some other faculties specified therein. In the Rule of 1988, the position remains the same. Clearly the executive Circulars of 1989 could not have adversely affected the writ- petitioner, when he did not have the requisite qualification for the post of Inspector, Weights & Measures, either under the old Rules or under the new Rules. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner has tried to make a distinction between direct appointment and appointment on promotion so as to wriggle out of aforesaid difficulty. But he has failed to bring to our notice any provision in the old Rules or new Rules laying down a lesser educational qualification for appointment to the post of Inspector by way of promotion. It is well understood in law that unless there is some special provision for a particular matter, the general provisions governing the eligibility for the post shall continue to hold the field. It is also well settled that in general sense appointment includes appointment by promotion also. Since the writ petitioners entered into service as clerk in the year 1975 and their educational qualification is only that of a matriculate, either under the old rule or the new rules, they are clearly not having the minimum educational qualification to claim such post. 3 In that view of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition. We order accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No oder as to costs. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey,J.)