IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5380 of 2010 1. Sunil Kumar Bharti, son of Sri Pitamber Prasad, At & PO Kataiya, PS Singheshwar, District Madhepura. 2. Ranjeet Kumar, son of Late Chandradeo Chaudhary, villate Tetri, PS Naugachiya, District Bhagalpur – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resource Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Patna. 4. The Director, Employment & Training Department, Bihar, Patna – Respondents. With CWJC No. 5153 of 2010 1. Ram Sagar, son of Baban Prasad, village Dahibhatta, Ps Uchkagaon, Dist. Gopalganj. 2. Ranjan Kumar, son of Mahendra Ram, Mohalla Pandit Colony, T-2/Q.No. 26, PS Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur. 3. Rambachan Sharma, son of Late Lalu Mistry, village Drawan, PS Kawakol, Dist. Nawada. 4. Deepak Kumar, son of Jagdish Prasad Srivastava, Mohalla Kavita Kunj, Rajbansinagar, Near S.P. resident, PS Town, Dist. Siwan – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Deployment and Training (Training Side), Bihar, Patna. 4. Director, Deployment and Training, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna – Respondents. 3 21.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have come to this court challenging the selection procedure of Instructor (Fitter) on contract basis advertised by the State Government in daily Dainik Jaagran. The minimum qualification as advertised is that the candidates should have passed their matriculation examination, I.T.I. having a diploma or degree in the said course. Besides this it is said that the candidates may also file their certificates showing their work experience. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 are considering only the marks obtained in the technical subject, i.e. I.T.I. for the purpose of selection. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there are two parts of the advertisement. The first is defined in clause 2 which deals with the minimum qualification of the candidates who can apply for the post of Instructors and other posts as mentioned in the advertisement. The second aspect is the selection process which is at clause 10 of the advertisement. It is said that the selection will be based on the qualification, written examination and the interview. Learned counsel also refers to Annexure ‘V’, dated 2.2.2010 wherein the selection committee consisting of seven members decided to treat the I.T.I. marks, diploma or degree were to be the criteria which would ultimately govern the selection process. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, the candidates have been selected and the results have been declared. They are now to be issued the appointment letters. It has also been brought on record that the minimum cut of marks for the general category as 87.7%, for scheduled caste 83.8%, Scheduled tribe 81.5%, E.B.C. 86%, B.C. 86.8%, W.B.C. 85.1% and H.C. (handicapped category) 86.2%. Petitioner no.1 belongs to B.C. category and has got 82.71% in the I.T.I. examination. Petitioner no.2 has secured 78.57% marks in the I.T.I. examination. Anil Kumar belonging to the general category has got 79.2% marks. Partho Rai has secured 77.8% marks and belongs to the general category. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no 3 anomaly in the selection process and a single criteria has been used for the purpose of the said selection. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the fact that if the respondents were to consider only the marks of I.T.I., they ought not to have prescribed other criteria, such as, experience, diploma, degree and Principle of Teaching for the purposes of applying for the post in question. The qualifications as laid down are described as the minimum qualifications which have been mentioned in the advertisement and they are only meant for the purpose of screening the candidates who hoped to be appo0inted as Instructor on a temporary basis. The ultimate decision as to what could be considered as the criteria for selection lies in the hands of the respondents. The under-lying fact is that the criteria should be uniformly applied for all the candidates and there should be no discrimination with respect to criteria laid down for the purpose of selecting the candidates. In the facts, therefore, I find that the selection process is in accordance with law and the grounds that certain criteria were mentioned for the purpose of screening the candidates cannot be said to be the criteria on which the selection ought to be made. It is a different thing that this court does not appreciate the fact that the Government should make appointment on contractual basis when the posts are sanctioned by the State Government and there are vacancies in the department. It would be proper and in the interest of the State, that regular appointments should be made on such 4 posts. Appointment made for a period of twelve months on contractual basis is nothing but a waste of energy and time and also causes financial loss to the State Government. The department ought to consider filling up the post on a regular basis instead of having ad hoc / stop gap arrangement in the aforesaid manner. These writ petitions are, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)