IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3693 of 2010 MUKESH KUMAR, S/O SRI BIKU RAM, R/O VILL.- MOHNI MANDAL TOLE, P.S.- MAJORGANJ, DISTT.- SITAMARHI ………..………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, and 2. HE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 08.03.2010. Heard Mr. Kumar Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring Rule 4(Ka)(ii) of the Bihar Zila Parisad Madhyamik and Ucchatar Madhymik Sikshak (Niyozan and Sewa Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 (Sansodhan Neyamawali, 2008) and Rule 4(Ka)(ii) of the Bihar Nagar Nikaya Madhyamik and Ucchatar Madhyamik Sikshak (Niyozan and Sewa Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 (Sanshodhan Niyamawali, 2008) as unconstitutional and for grant of ancillary reliefs. 3. Mr. Kumar Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the challenge put forth in the writ petition relating to the constitutional validity of the Rules 2 and restricted his prayer with regard to issuance of necessary direction to the respondents to treat the Degree of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidhya Peetha, Deoghar as equivalent to Graduation and consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Madhyamik Sikshak in the Schools under Zila Parishad and Nagar Parishad and Nagar Panchayat of the Districts where the petitioner has applied and then after counseling to appoint the petitioner on the post of Madhyamik Shikshak. 4. It is urged by Mr. Kumar Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5129 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) along with other matters, decided on 17-11-2009, has conferred certain benefits to the petitioners therein and similar relief be granted to the present petitioner. In Sanjay Kumar (supra) this Court has held thus:- “There are large number of legal authorities for the proposition that the courts should attempt to save the vires of provisions if it is possible by reading down the provision or by appropriate interpretation. We are of the view that considering the nature of the rules which can be changed by executive notification at any time, the interest of all will be best served by interpreting relevant rules so that condition no.1 of eligibility requiring graduate degree from a recognized University shall also include 3 equivalent degree from any institution recognized by the State of Bihar.” In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding we have to now consider what relief should be given to the petitioner in respect of on- going selection process. There is no dispute that no appointment letters have been issued to the successful candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have already applied pursuant to the advertisement. It does appear from the submission made at the Bar that process of selection has advanced considerably since the advertisement published in the Month of August, 2008. At this stage, it may not be in the interest of State and the public to delay the recruitment process unnecessarily by extending reliefs to those who did not move this Court by asking the authorities to issue fresh advertisement. Hence, we direct the respondents not to issue appointment letters to the candidates for the post of Librarian even if they have been selected. The selection process for this post will be redone after taking into consideration fairly and in accordance with the guidelines the applications of the petitioners, who have already applied. If on such fair consideration, the petitioners also enters into the zone of the selected candidates then they will also be entitled to be appointed along with other such candidates. These directions will be applicable only for the district for which the petitioners have applied. In order to avoid further delay we direct the respondents to complete the process of selection and appointment as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.” 5. Relying on the said decision it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar relief should 4 be granted to the petitioner who has applied for appointment on the post of Madhyamik Sikshak in the Schools of the Zila Parishad / Nagar Parisad / Nagar Panchayat of Sitamarhi, and the Zila Parishads of Sheohar, Vaishali, Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga, Samastipur, Madhubani, Siwan, Motihari, Bettiah and Bhagalpur. 6. It is worth noting, in the earlier writ petition, the Division Bench restricted relief to those districts for which petitioners have applied. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III for the State submitted that the order passed by earlier Division Bench, being restrictive in nature, scope thereof cannot be expanded by another Bench. It is also canvassed by him that in the said order a direction was issued to complete the process of selection and appointment as early as possible. 7. Submission of Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III for the State is that when last date for counseling and appointment has been fixed, at this juncture, if the case of the petitioner is taken into consideration, it will bring in an anomalous situation and it would be extremely difficult to proceed with the 5 appointment. 8. Mr. Kumar Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, though date of counseling has been fixed, for the process of appointment it would take long time to be finalized and, therefore, benefit of the Division Bench order passed on earlier occasion should be extended to the petitioner. 9. What we could have done had the petitioner come on an earlier point of time when others had come is quite different. It is worth noting advertisement is of the year 2009. There had been a direction by this Court in a public interest litigation commanding the State to verify the certificates furnished by finally selected candidates which took long time. Thereafter in the second round of litigation, provision was laid down to confer benefit to the petitioners therein in respect of districts. In view of the obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that at this juncture, it would be inappropriate to issue any further direction to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed on the post of Madhyamik Shikshak. However, if order of the Division 6 Bench is not assailed and attains finality, petitioner can rely on the same for future appointment. 10. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )