IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1168 of 2009 DR.MANJU BALA wife of Dr. Bishwanath Choudhary, Resident of Jamuawan, Police Station-Sandesh, District- Bhojpur (Ara) …Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Human Resources Development Department (Higher Education), Govt. of Bihar, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Director, Higher Education Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. Mr. Rishav Chandra Jain, Director, PRAKRIT JAIN SASTRA AND AHINSHA SODH SANSTHAN, VAISHALI, BASSOKUND, MUZAFFARPUR. … Respondents/Respondents ---------- For the appellant : Mr. Umashankar, Advocate For the respondent nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Zaki Haider, AC to G.A. 10 For the respondent nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 2/ 09.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons indicated in the limitation petition (I.A. No.5835 of 2009), delay in filing the appeal is condoned. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for admission. The present appellant had filed CWJC No. 12017 of 2008 challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as Director, PRAKRIT JAIN SASTRA AND AHINSHA SODH SANSTHAN, VAISHALI, BASSOKUND, MUZAFFARPUR. The only contention which was raised is that the appointee did not hold the requisite qualification of M.A. and he was only holder of (Acharya) which was not considered as equivalent to M.A. on earlier occasion. - 2 - The learned single Judge upon considering the materials came to the conclusion that since the State Government as well as the Public Service Commission has considered the educational qualification of “Acharya” to be equivalent to M.A., there is no scope for the High Court to take a different view and, accordingly, the writ application was dismissed. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the very same contention is being reiterated by the counsel for the appellant. After having considered the submission and perusing the materials on record, we do not see any scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. That apart, we find that the present respondent no.5 has remained in the office for last five years and the writ was filed in the year 2008, even though he was selected in December, 2004. Apart from the above, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the post of Lecturer also requires similar educational qualification of M.A. and, admittedly, the respondent no.5 was a Lecturer prior to his appointment as Director. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. JA/- (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)