IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.153 of 2007 ***** 1. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination, Government of Bihar, Patna. …. …. Appellants/respondents Versus 1. Dr.Vijay Kumar, son of Late Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad Singh, resident of 301, Anant Vikash Apartment, Rukkunpura, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. …. …. Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, through its Chairman. …. …. Performa Respondent ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-II For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th November, 2008. The only contention raised by the government counsel in assailing the order of Single Judge passed on 21st August, 2006 is that Dr. Vijay Kumar (writ petitioner) did not possess the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Director of Archives and, therefore, Single Judge was not justified in directing the State Government to honour the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission (for short, „the Commission‟) 2. In the requisition sent by the State Government to - 2 - the Commission for selection of a suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Director of Archives, the academic qualifications were prescribed. The following academic qualifications, in the requisition, were stated to be essential: - “(i) At least a second Class M.A. degree in history or equivalent a recognized University with one or more papers in modern Indian History (Post 1600 A.D.) (ii) Adequate knowledge of Archival Science and about 7 years experience of work in an Archives office in supervisory capacity. (iii) Knowledge and experience of editing and publication of records.” 3. According to the government counsel, Dr. Vijay Kumar does not fulfill the essential qualification No. (ii) inasmuch as he does not have adequate knowledge of archival science and about seven years of experience of work in an archives office in supervisory capacity. 4. It is pertinent to notice that Dr. Vijay Kumar has been found to possess requisite qualifications as prescribed in the requisition by the Commission. As a matter of fact Dr. Vijay Kumar has been found to be more suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Director, Archives by the Commission and it has recommended his name to the State Government for appointment. The stand of the State Government is that when the certificates produced by the respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) were examined, it transpired that the petitioner did not have the essential qualifications as per the requisition sent by the State Government. The Single Judge wanted - 3 - the State Government to clarify its stand as to which of the essential qualifications is not met by Dr. Vijay Kumar. Despite the orders dated 7th August, 2006 and 17th August, 2006, no affidavit has been filed by the State Government explaining the position as to on what basis it has formed its opinion that Dr. Vijay Kumar does not meet the essential academic qualification. The Single Judge for want of any affidavit or explanation by the State Government, held that there was nothing to assume or presume that Dr. Vijay Kumar did not have the essential qualification. 5. Since the Commission has already examined eligibility of Dr. Vijay Kumar and has found him more suitable after interviewing all the candidates for the appointment to the post of Director, Archives, the stand of the State Government that Dr. Vijay Kumar does not meet the essential eligibility does not seem to have any justification. 6. The order passed by the Single Judge, therefore, does not call for any interference. 7. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-