IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1553 of 2002 RAMA NAND THAKUR, son of Sri Satrughan Thakur, resident of village Baswari, P.S. Chakmehshi, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, Bihar at Pusa through the Vice Chancellor, Pusa, District Samastipur 2. Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar at Pusa, District Samastipur 3. Purusottam Kumar Mani, son of Sri Kapildeo Prasad, resident of village Nanour, P.O. Ibrahimpur, District Nalanda, Bihar 4. Pradeep Khasaul, son of Prof. Khashi Kant Mishra, Resident of village Gangasagar (North), Donar, Darbhanga 5. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, son of Dr. Indrabhan Prasad, resident of village Nayainagar (Judges Colony), Neora Road, Khagaul, District Patna 6. Sanjeet Kumar, son of Prof. Umeshwar Prasad Thakur, resident of Chakkar Road, near S.B.I. (A.D.B.), town and District Muzaffarpur … Respondents. with CWJC No.3607 of 2003 OM PRAKASH, son of Sri Anil Kumar Roy, resident of Mohalla/ At Mohammadpur Deopar, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, Bihar at Pusa through the Vice Chancellor, Pusa, District Samastipur 2. Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar at Pusa, District Samastipur 3. Purusottam Kumar Mani, son of Sri Kapildeo Prasad, resident of village Nanour, P.O. Ibrahimpur, District Nalanda, Bihar 4. Pradeep Khasaul, son of Prof. Khashi Kant Mishra, Resident of village Gangasagar (North), Donar, Darbhanga 5. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, son of Dr. Indrabhan Prasad, resident of village Nayainagar (Judges Colony), Neora Road, Khagaul, District Patna 6. SanjeeV Kumar, son of Prof. Umeshwar Prasad Thakur, resident of Chakkar Road, near S.B.I. (A.D.B.), town and District Muzaffarpur 7. Prem Kumar, Junior Engineer relation of Ex Vice Chancellor Sri Gopal Jee Trivedi, Rajendra Agriculture university, Bihar, Patna 2 8. Sidha Nath Prasad Singh, Junior Engineer, relation of Suresh Nath Singh, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa 9. D.W.B. (Director Work Plan, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa … Respondents. ----------- 5. 16.7.2010 Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Ratan Kumar Kumar for the petitioners and Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyaya for the respondents. In both the writ petitions a common question has been raised by the two petitioners who have filed their writ applications seeking direction for their appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in Rajendra Agriculture University. They for this purpose have also challenged the selection and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 6 in C.W.J.C.No. 1553/2002 and respondents no. 3 to 8 in C.W.J.C.No. 3607/2003. Mr. Choudhary with regard to the aforementioned relief of the petitioner has submitted that the University has violated the norms and conditions of the advertisement, inasmuch as even though the qualification for the post of Junior Engineer was only three years Diploma in 3 Civil Engineering but then all the appointments have been made by selecting Engineering graduates by ignoring the minimum qualification of the post. It has been contended that the expression ‘preference’ used in the advertisement would mean only when the two candidates one being degree holder and another being Diploma holder were equal in merit, one having qualification of degree in Engineering could be preferred in appointment but in the present case the respondents have made classification for evaluation of academic qualification in which out of 50 marks 10 marks was kept only for possessing of degree qualification which in turn has vitiated the entire selection and appointment. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, has filed the counter affidavit and has annexed all the relevant papers. From the reading of such counter affidavit and the connected documents it becomes clear that the norms of evaluation kept by the Selection Committee was 50% marks for the academic and the remaining 50% for the assessment in Viva voce/ oral interview. In 4 50% marks kept for academic 20 was kept for matriculation and 20 for marks secured in Intermediate or Diploma course. 10 marks was kept for academic attainment in degree Engineering course. There is no dispute that the norms and condition of Viva voce of 50% was the same and uniform for all criteria. The question would, therefore, arise that if as per statutory minimum qualification selections have to be made can a candidate having higher qualification be given additional weightage at inception which would in process eliminate all the persons having minimum qualification. This Court could not go into the larger question for the present because the evaluation sheet given as with regard to the petitioners vis-à-vis respondents would go to show that even if these marks given to the private respondents on the head of 10 marks of assessment for degree Engineering qualification is altogether ignored and deleted, even then either of the petitioners will not come in the zone of consideration, inasmuch as both of them belong to the general category for whom the minimum cut 5 off of the last candidate selected and appointed was 72.1%, whereas the petitioner Om Prakash had secured only 57.2% and the petitioner Ramamand Thakur had secured only 51.3%. Thus, if the private respondents’ mark of Bachelor of Engineering qualification which ranges between 5.8 to 7.3 as shown in Annexure ‘D’ is altogether removed even then none of the two petitioners would come in the range of selection. That being so, the challenge of the petitioners to the appointment of private respondents must fail. Before parting with this Court, however, would like to observe that the concept of preference as given in the terms of advertisement had to be implemented in a manner that no Diploma holder would be wiped out only because of higher qualification of candidate possessing Engineering. It would, therefore, be necessary for the University to evolve its own norms where such preference can only be given after both Diploma holder and the degree holder seeking appointment on the post of Junior Engineer 6 are found to be equal in merit. Though in the present case such evaluation has not led to any prejudice to any Diploma holder but then in future there is every possibility of a right Diploma holder seeking appointment on the post of Diploma holder to be edged out only on the basis of marks allotted to a degree holder for holding his qualification. That may not be permissible in law, if the expression ‘preference’ has to be given its true meaning and purpose in the context of the advertisement and the Rules laying down the qualification for the post of Junior Engineer to be only diploma in Engineering. It would be a different thing if the Rules itself is amended making way for qualification of Degree in Engineering as an additional qualification in which case weightage can be given to such degree holders in the matter of appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in the University under the present Rules laying down the qualification of diploma in Engineering for the post of Junior Engineer the use of word ‘preference’ with minimum qualification in the advertisement, as in the present case 7 will have to always mean that the two candidates one being diploma holder and the other degree holder are evaluated on the same norms and parameter. Subject to the aforementioned observations, these two applications being devoid of any merit are dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/