IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13743 of 2010 1. BRAJ BHUSHAN KUMAR S/O LATE DIP NARAYAN PRASAD C/O LAL MOHAN YADAV, BANK MEN'S COLONY, CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA 2. AJAY KUMAR S/O RATNESHWAR PRASAD C/O DR. SANJAY KUMAR 'GREEN', GREEN NIWAS BETWEEN GUMATI NO. 2 & 3, R.B.S.S. ROAD, BIKHANPUR, BHAGALPUR (BIHAR) 3. SRI BHAGWAN SINGH S/O LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH MOHALLA- FAZALGANJ, P.O. + P.S.- SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. SURENDRA KUMAR ROY S/O SRI YOGENDRA ROY SAMTA COLONY, BEHIND BAZAR SAMITI, HAZIPUR, P.O.- HAZIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 5. ANUPMA KUMARI D/O SRI BHAGWATI PRASAD RAJA BAZAR, BIHIYA TOWER ROAD, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 6. RAJESH KUMAR S/O AJIT KUMAR SINGH MOHALLA- RAJENDRA NAGAR, DISTT.- NAWADAH 7. ASHOK PRASAD MEHTA S/O TARINI MEHTA C/O RENU COMPLEX, BHUT NATH ROAD (1ST PANI TANKI), PATNA-20 8. KAMESHWAR SINGH S/O RAM SURESH SINGH C/O PREM RAI (SUKULDEO BHAWAN), ROAD NO. 8, RAM LAKHAN PATH, ASHOK NAGAR, BHOJPUR COLONY, KANKARBAGH, PANA-20 9. KAMLESH KUMAR NIRANJAN S/O SRI RAMESHWAR RAM MOHALLA- KASAP, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARA) Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR 3. THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 4. THE SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. COMMISSIONER OF MANREGA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA-15 7. THE UNDER SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 30.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment to posts under the 2 District Rural Development Agencies in the department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar. The posts were (i) Programme Officer (ii) Assistant Project Officer (iii) Assistant Project Officer (Marketing) and (iv) Project Economist. Together they form Group-I. The qualifications for the four posts were mentioned individually in the advertisement. The petitioners were applicants for the post of Project Economist holding post graduate qualification in Economics. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they were candidates for all the four posts optionally. If they were not found fit for the post of Project Economist, they should have been considered for other three posts suitably. Strong reliance was placed on the admit card top column which mentions the words “preference wise post code”. All the four posts had separate codes. The second submission was that appointments had been made on the post of Programme Officer and Assistant Project Officer of persons holding qualification in Labour and Social Welfare on the premise that it was equivalent to the course of Personal Management and Industrial Relation conducted by the L.N.M. Institute of Economic 3 Development and Social Change. If the conditions of eligibility were deviated there is no reason why the same benefit of deviation cannot be provided to the petitioners also on basis of equivalence. Counsel for the State submitted that there is nothing in the advertisement to state that options were invited with regard to the posts. In any event, a person who did not possess the basic qualification for a post cannot submit or claim an option right for the same. He lastly submitted that issues of equivalence of qualification are matters for the employer to decide. This Court does not find from the advertisement that any options were invited for the posts. If a candidate possesses qualifications for more than one post, he could certainly have applied for more than one post. But that is an issue which does not concern the Court. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they hold necessary qualification for the post of Project Economist only being post graduate in Economics. On their own showing that they did not hold the basic eligibility for the other three posts, what may or what may not have been processed for appointment on the other three posts does not concern the petitioners and this Court is 4 therefore not persuaded to go into those issues at the behest of the petitioners in view of the nature of their claim. In any event of the matter, whether the qualification prescribed for the post of Programme Officer and Assistant Project Officer was equivalent to Labour and Social Welfare and those holding the latter qualifications met the job requirement of the employer to hold equivalence are issues for employer alone to decide. There is no occasion for the Court to dwell into this issues as it cannot be the case and it is not the case of the petitioners that their post graduate qualification in Economics is equivalent to post graduate in Rural Management or MBA. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)