IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9047 of 2010 1. Md. Abbas Alam, S/O Late Ramzan Ali, R/V Birania Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayat, Bahadurganj,Kishanganj. 2. Vishnu Kant Jha, S/O Late Bhuranjha, R/V And P.O. Pali Mohan , P.S. Khazauli, District- Madhubani. 3. Prem Shankar Singh, S/O Late Sadhu Ram Singh, R/V Belsand (Tola Dadhbigha) P.O.+P.S. Belsand,District- Sitamarhi. 4. Rajendra Prasad Singh, S/O Late Vishwanath Singh, R/V +P.O. Jagdishpur Via (Chainpur) P.S. And District-Siwan. 5. Ravindranath Sharma, S/O Late Ram Narayan Sharma, R/V And P.O. And P.S. Bisfy, District Madhubani. 6. Shatrughan Pathak, S/O Late Lakshman Pathak, R/V + P.O. Bagaura,P.S.- Daraunda,District-Siwan. 7. Shyam Sunder Prasad, S/O Late Daya Shankar Prasad, R/M Hathsarganj P.O. And P.S. Hajipur Town District Vaishali. 8. Arun Kumar Srivastava, S/O Late Annuridh Prasad Srivastava R/V Shivpuri (Near B.B.M. High School),P.O. And P.S. Purnia, District- Purnia. 9. Devanand Srivastav, S/O Late Kamta Prasad Srivastava, R/M Maripur, P.S. Kaji, Mohammadpur,District- Kishanganj. 10. Shiv Shankar Ram, S/O Late Ram Ashish Ram, R/V Karanpur Bochahan, P.S. .....District- Muzaffarpur. 11. Shankar Rajak, S/O Late Mahavir Razak, R/V + P.O. + P.S - Gangjala, District- Saharsa. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Reform, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary,Department Of Rural Development,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary , Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reform,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department,Govt.Of Bihar,Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Labour Employment And Training Department. 7. The Labour Commissioner,Bihar,Patna. 8. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Special),Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate with M/s Sanjay Kumar Tiary & Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar II, G.A. 5 with Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 5 --------- 6. 28.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners hold the post of Labour Enforcement Officer under the Bihar Rural Development Services. The State Government in the Rural Development Department framed Bihar Gramin Seva Sambarg Niyamabali, 2010 under Article 309 of the Constitution dated 2 19.1.2010 (hereinafter referred to as „the appointment regulations‟). Rule 8(b) of the regulations provides for interim appointments pending regular appointments, when the interim appointments shall cease automatically. On 19.1.2010 the Rural Department issued a notification in exercise of powers under Rule 8(b) for filling up vacancies of Block Development Officers by such interim appointment for a duration of three years on deputation. On 6.2.2010 inclusive of a corrigendum an advertisement was issued by the Rural Development Department inviting applications from the holders of specified posts in the identified departments mentioned therein for appointment on the post of Block Development Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that fixing a cut off age limit of 52 years as eligibility to apply for such deputation is arbitrary. There is no rationale or logic behind fixation of this age limit. A person shall remain eligible and agile at the age of 53 years also. The second contention is that if the age limit is not enhanced, the petitioners may be compelled to work under their juniors who shall be appointed on deputation as Block Development Officer and shall supervise the works of the petitioners. A classification based on age cannot per se be said to be arbitrary. If the classification is done arbitrarily without any logic or rationale there may be occasion for the Court to interfere but if the respondents urge a rationale and a logic it is not the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to sit over the wisdom of the administrator and supplant its own views in place of the administrator. This Court in CWJC No. 6826 in a challenge arising out of the same rules has held as follows:- 3 “The law stands well settled that it is for the employer to specify its own need for the kind of personnel it requires for discharge of specified nature of works. This Court cannot redefine the needs and eligibility specified by the Government as per its own understanding.” These observations were derived from the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 535 (J. Ranga Swamy vs Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors.) which held at Para 6 as follows:- “6. …………… It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. …. There is nothing prima facie preposterous about this requirements. It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question…..” Reliance as also further placed on (2002) 6 SCC 252 (State of Rajasthan vs. Lata Arun). The respondents in their counter affidavit state that given the nature of duties to be performed by Block Development Officers, regular, frequent field visit with long stressful working hours are required. Healthy, young and energetic person are therefore better suited for the same. The ground urged by the respondents can certainly not be classified as devoid of rationale and logic rendering it ipso facto arbitrary. Once reason has been furnished and those administrative reasoning have their own rationale and logic the court cannot start examining the sufficiency of the reasoning in exercise of powers of its judicial review. The grievance that the petitioners may be asked to work under their juniors, does not persuade the Court to so lightly interfere with the scheme of the State Government which otherwise has been explained 4 as it clearly carries a palliative for the petitioners that it is an interim arrangement to cease after three years only. If this has been done in the interest of administration and to ensure smooth continuity in government scheme the Court shall not lightly interfere with the same. However if the respondents do not stand by the original scheme of keeping the post on deputation for three years only and seek to extend it by giving it some kind of permanency or semi permanency surely the petitioners shall have a legitimate grievance. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)