IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1108 of 2009 KUMARI ANIMA, wife of Vinayak Chandra Gupta, resident of 6- B/28 Tilak Marg, North S.K. Puri, P.S. S.K. Puri and District-Patna Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Technology Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Director, Department of Science and Technology, Technology Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary-cum- Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. ----------- 2. 16.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents Bihar Public Service Commission and the State of Bihar. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 24.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8528 of 2009 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant had filed the writ petition assailing Advertisement No.17/2009 with regard to the appointment of Principal in the Government Women’s Polytechnics. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the qualifications contained in the advertisement are such that no qualified candidate shall be available fulfilling the same. The writ petitioner also raised a grievance that under the earlier Advertisement No.07/2004 for the same posts the writ - 2 - petitioner was qualified as per the relaxation in the condition regarding experience granted by All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE), but instead of proceeding with the same a fresh advertisement has been issued. However, the said submission did not find favour with the learned single Judge who held that the qualification for any post is the discretion of the employer and this Court will not have any say in the matter and the writ petition was accordingly, disposed of with the direction to the Commission and others connected to finalize the appointment process as notified in Annexure-7 within a reasonable time. The main grievance of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be that the qualification regarding experience having been relaxed by the AICTE for a period of five years, in terms of which Advertisement No.7/2004 was issued earlier against which the appellant being duly qualified also applied, the authorities ought to have proceeded with the said appointment process instead of coming up with a fresh advertisement in the year 2009 after allowing the relaxation in experience granted by the AICTE to lapse, as none of the candidates, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, - 3 - as per the earlier advertisement was qualified for the said post. In our opinion, there is no force in the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant since the employer is not obliged to complete the selection process on the basis of any advertisement issued. More so, it is admitted by the appellant that no external candidate, who had applied, was eligible for the post of Principal and her application had also been rejected on the ground that it was not forwarded by the departmental level. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no such condition in the previous advertisement for forwarding of the application for internal candidate by the Department. If the appellant was aggrieved by such action of the authorities at the relevant time, then her remedy lay at that particular time against the refusal of the authorities to consider her application through appropriate proceedings and not after a fresh advertisement has been issued for appointment on the said posts. That having not been done, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the issuance of a fresh advertisement by the authorities and seeking a direction that they should go back to - 4 - the earlier advertisement, which apparently has been given a go by by the issuance of the fresh advertisement. In view of the discussions made above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Dipak Misra, C.J.) ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) VPS