IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1172 of 2011 1. Amarnath Chaudhary aged about 26 years, son of Kapileshwar Chaudhary, resident of village – Bairopatti, District – Samastipur. 2. Agastya Dev Pushan aged about 30 years, son of Abhay Kumar Pushan, resident of Rajapakar, District –Vaishali. 3. Chandradeep Kumar aged about 29 years, son of Kailash Prasad Patel, resident of village – Agroil tola, Bhanghan, District – Vaishali. 4. Awahit Kumar aged about 33 years, son of Gopi Krishna Bihari Prasad, resident of Tilak Tajpur, District – Sitamarhi. 5. Mukesh Prasad aged about 37 years, son of Gorakh Nath Prasad, resident of F-15, Anikat Quarter, Dehri-on-sone, District – Rohtas. 6. Asif Eqbal aged about 31 year, son of Md. Mofid, resident of Kabadih (Fatehpur Kaba), District – Vaishali. 7. Navneet Kumar aged about 27 years, son of Chandra Bhushan Singh, resident of Akhara Ghat, Bank Colony, District- Muzaffarpur. 8. Rajeev Kumar Raju aged about 30 years, son of Vidya Sagar Singh, resident of Rambagh Mahavir Asthan, District – Muzaffarpur. 9. Prahlad Kumar Singh aged about 27 years, son of Upendra Singh, resident of village – Mehasi, District – Samastipur. 10. Vinod Kumar Vishwashi aged about 31 years, son of Yogendra Prasad Yadav, resident of Dharphari, District – Muzaffarpur. 11. Chandrashekhar Kumar aged about 29 years, son of Punit Raut, resident of Singhi Tola Pirouha, District – Samastipur. 12. Kumar Gaurab aged about 30 years, son of Premchandra, resident of Tilak Tajpur, District – Sitamarhi. 13. Arvind Kumar Baitha aged about 29 years, son of late Brijlal Baitha, resident of Kishore Nagar (Rewa Road), District – Muzaffarpur. 14. Anish Kumar Morya aged about 26 years, son of Radha Kishore Singh, resident of village – Sakri Saraiya, District – Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department having his office at Old Secretariat, Police Station – Sachivalaya, District – Patna. 2. The Director, Directorate of Fisheries having his office at Old Secretariat Canteen Pond, Police station – Sachivalaya, District – Patna. ----------- 05. 18.8.2011 When the writ was filed by these petitioners, there was even insinuation that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in appointing certain persons on the post of Fisheries 2 Extension Supervisor by ignoring their merit position or the marks given to them. The earlier counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State denied such an allegation but since they did not produce the merit list, they were directed to do so by supplementing it. In the supplementary counter affidavit the entire merit list has been annexed. From perusal of the same there is no iota of doubt that the last person in the category to which petitioners are claimants had 69 percent marks whereas these petitioners are many notches below. After such an evidence was produced, the next limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have gained and acquired experience which must be given due weightage in such appointment because after all the training imparted to them by Fisheries Department cannot be allowed to go waste. Such a contention does not merit consideration because the appointment and selection will have to be based on the terms and conditions of the advertisement and it is not open for the Court to expand or take away those conditions. If there was no provision for giving weightage for prior training or experience in the advertisement, the same cannot be directed to be included after the selection process is already over in this regard. It is fishing and a roving kind of allegation and 3 submission. There is no merit in the writ application. The appointment seems to have been carried out in a fair and square manner. No interference is warranted in view of the same. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)