IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1459 of 2007 SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, son of Ram Lochan Singh, resident of village + PO. Abhaipur, PS Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai. … Petitioner. Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY, PUSA, Samastipur, through its Registrar. 2. Vice- Chancellor, R. A. U., PUSA Samastipur. 3. Registrar R. A. U. PUSA Samastipur. 4. Director (ADmn) R.A.U. PUSA, Samastipur. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Recruitment, R. A. U., PUSA, Samastipur. 6. Chairman, Selection Committee, RAU, PUSA, Samastipur. 7. Sudhir Narayan s/o not known, at present working on the post of Artist-cum- Photographer at Agriculture Research Institute, Lohiya Nagar Patna-20 … Respondents. ----------- 3. 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The following prayer of the petitioner made in this writ application; “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Artist cum Photographer in the light of the direction issued by Supreme Court vide order dated 18.2.1998 in SLP (Civil) No. 18954 of 1994. Further be pleased to direct the respondents to return the services of respondent no. 7 to the Bihar Veterinary College Patna on the post of Photographer cum Artist as he does not come within the purview of Hon’ble Supreme Court directions and declare his appointment on the post of Photographer cum Artist at Agriculture Research Institute (A.R.I.) Lohiya Nagar Patna, illegal, pursuant to advertisement no. 2 of 1998 issued by regional director A.R.I. Patna.” 2 has been completely answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit wherein it has been clarified that pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court, the process of selection was undergone and in the said selection, the respondent no. 7 was appointed on the post of Photographers-cum- Artist. The respondents as with regard to the grievance of the petitioner as against respondent no. 7 had explained inter alia;- “16. That the statement made in paragraph no. 12 is misconceived. The respondent no. 7 was applicant for the post of Photographer-cum-Artist and on the basis of interview and performance he was selected for appointment as Photographer- cum-Artist. It is asserted here that the procedure followed by the Selection Committee for appointment was just, fair and reasonable consistent with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court. 17. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no. 13 of the writ application it is submitted here that the respondent no.7 was appointed on 20.5.2005 in compliance of judgment in CWJC No. 11598/1999. 18. That the statement made in paragraph no. 15 is wrong. The respondent no. 7 was not transferred from Bihar Vetenary College but he was appointed on the post of Photographer-cum-Artist in ARI, Patna.” A copy of the said counter affidavit was 3 served on the counsel for the petitioner on 20.9.2010 but there is no rejoinder to the same and therefore the aforementioned uncontroverted statements would leave nothing for this Court but to come to the conclusion that there was no flaw in the order of appointment of respondent no. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 31.3.2006 by taking a plea that the said Selection Committee did not give weightage for the experience earned by the petitioner in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 18th February 1998 and therefore the entire selection of respondent no. 7 and rejection of the case of the petitioner is vitiated. He has further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhir Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa Samastipur & Ors, reported in 2000(3) PLJR 765. Finally, it has also been contended that as the respondents have not controverted paragraph 12 and 14 of the writ application adverse interference should be drawn against the petitioner and the prayer made by the petitioner for his 4 appointment should be allowed. Coming to the first part of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Apex Court had not been followed while undergoing the selection for the post of photographer-cum-artist, this Court would find that by Advertisement No. 2 of 1998 when the said post was advertised the following qualification was laid for the said post; 1 Nk;kdkj lg&dykdkj osrueku 1500-50-2150-60-2750 inksa dh la[;k&01 lkekU;& 01 ;ksX;rk ,oa vuqHko Nk;kadu ,oa fp=dkjh esa fdlh ekU;rk izkIr egkfo|ky; ls fMxzh@nks o"kksZa dk Nk;kadu ,oa fp=dkjh dk vuqHkoA Thus, the advertisement which was issued on 4.4.1998 had specifically mentioned the qualification of either degree in the photography from a recognized institution or the experience of two years in the field of photography. The assessment of the Selection Committee that the petitioner was not conversant with the photography and was only knowing tracing of maps was good enough for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner as he did not fulfil the required criteria fixed for the post of Photographer-cum- Artist. 5 The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that had the Selection Committee given the petitioner weightage for experience in terms of Supreme Court order he could have secured 68 marks in place of 50 as given to him by the Selection Committee as shown in the proceeding contained in Annexure-B has to be only noted for its being rejected. Admittedly, the post of Photography-cum- Artist is a Class III post and the Supreme Court in its order had made it clear that under the experience clause for a Class IV employee, the employee working on a permanent Class IV post shall be given by way of two marks for each completed year of the experience subject a maximum of thirty marks. The fact that the petitioner was holding the post of casual labourer under Soil Survey Scheme as clearly shown in the order dated 20th May 2005 (annexure- 6) would automatically rule him out for giving him weightage as such casual labourer cannot be held to be holder of a Class III or Class IV post and therefore the experience of the petitioner could not have been counted for regular appointment on a Class III post of Photography-cum- Artist. 6 The submission that the University has not denied the petitioner’s earlier engagement on the post of Photographer-cum- Artist in the year 1988 and that the petitioner was initially engaged as Class III employee has to be again gone into in the light of the document available on record which go to show that the petitioner at the time of seeking appointment had described him as an ex casual labourer of Soil Survey Scheme and that is how the interview letter was issued to him on 28th May 2005 in that capacity. It would be thus difficult for this Court to now accept that the petitioner while working on casual basis was holding any Class III post and consequently was also entitled for weightage of experience in terms of Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court order is very clear that such experience has to be reckoned for the category of post applied and therefore a Class IV employee working on a casual labour could not have been given the weightage of experience towards the Class III post of Photography-cum- Artist. This Court therefore does not find any flaw in the denial of weightage of experience in terms of order of the Apex Court to the petitioner. The University having found from the 7 recommendation of the Selection Committee that there was only one post of Photographer –cum- Artist available and the respondent no. 7 having secured higher marks to the petitioner had rightly appointed him on the said post. This Court therefore would also not find any error either in the appointment of respondent no. 7 or rejection of the case of the petitioner. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)