IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.526 of 1999 RAJESH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.9832 of 1999 ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.3498 of 2006 DILIP KUMAR GUPTA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, Mr. Shanti Pratap For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, J.C. to AAG 9. For B.P.S.C. : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal ----------- 6. 19.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The issue in this batch of writ applications relates to the appointment of Village Level Worker and Village Extension Worker in the light of certain policy decisions dated 6.4.1988 bearing memo no. 485 and 6.08.1988 bearing memo no. 9133. It is submitted that by the aforesaid orders a decision was taken to grant preference to Agriculture graduates from Agriculture University on the aforesaid posts. That they were to be considered for appointment as and when they make an application for the purpose. It was urged that in the advertisement dated 26.1.1998 preference may be given to persons like the petitioner in appointment. Counsel for the State has pointed out that the aforesaid - 2 - advertisement was the subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 2425 of 1998 disposed on 2.9.1998. This Court held that when an advertisement had been issued under the Bihar Village Level Worker and Village Extension Worker (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1987 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, there could be no variation in the same by any executive instructions of the year 1995 without amendment of the Statutory Rules. Therefore, the advertisement issued in1998 was struck down by this Court. The petitioners were not applicants under the advertisement issued in pursuance of the 1987 Rules. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion to consider the candidature of the petitioners under the aforesaid Government instructions which in any event have been withdrawn on 1.2.1994 by Government letter no. 848. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as and when the Respondents issue an advertisement for such appointment the petitioners are also to be considered and that they should be granted preference under such advertisement in terms of the policy decision noticed above. If an advertisement is issued, the petitioners fulfill the condition therein and apply, quite naturally they are required to be considered. A person possessing higher qualification than the minimum prescribed under an advertisement cannot be denied consideration. It shall be the privilege of the appointing authority to decide to whom such preference be given under an advertisement and under what circumstances and/or conditions. The writ applications stand disposed off. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)