IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8936 of 2009 1. INLAND FISHERIES SOCIETY through its Chairman, Rishikesh Kashyap, S/o Jibachh Prasad Sahni, R/o Mohalla – 1st Floor, Meen Bhawan, West Boring Canal Road, Patna – 800023. 2. Manuar Habib,S/o Late Habibur Rahman R/o Vill _ P.O. – Ababakarpur, Via- Baghi, P.S. Katahara (O.P.), District – Vaishali. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. 7. The District Agricultural Officer, Vaishali. 8. The District Agricultural Officer, Madhubani. …. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 30.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Subject Matter Specialist in the district of Vaishali pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-5. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Annexure-1 that Dr. Kaushal Kumar, who secured only 65.75% marks has been selected ignoring the better claim of the petitioner as petitioner had obtained 72% marks as would appear from the mark sheet, Annexure-8. Counsel in this connection with reference to Clause 3 of the advertisement pointed out that amongst the applicant whoever secured better marks at the graduation level was to be considered for selection and appointment and petitioner having secured better marks than Dr. Kaushal Kumar should have been selected for Vaishali district. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that appointments in the light of the select list Annexure-1 is to be made on or before 15th of August, 2009 and this Court should - 2 - intervene in the matter in the light of the better result of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure-8. 4. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that from the mark sheet, Annexure-8, we cannot conclude that petitioner is a graduate in either Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Husbandry or Fishery, as such this Court should not record any finding and ask the petitioner to represent before the Agriculture Production Commissioner, who should consider the matter in the light of the mark sheet, Annexure-8 and if it is true that petitioner is a graduate either in Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Husbandry or Fishery and had secured better marks than Dr. Kaushal Kumar, then his case should be considered for selection and appointment in terms of Annexure-5 for the district of Vaishali. 5. Let petitioner represent before the Agriculture Production Commissioner along with a copy of this order and the representation be considered by him, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of representation along with a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the representation of the petitioner succeeds then the appointment made in the light of selection list, Annexure-1 shall be subject to the result of the representation. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)