IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14345 of 2010 1. BANDANA KUMARI D/O RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH R/O MOHALLA- BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, BHUTNATH ROAD, SECTOR-7, P.S.AGAMKUAN, DISTT- PATNA………………………………………………………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA…………………………………………………...RESPONDENTS ----------- 03/ 07-Dec-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-3 appearing for the State. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to Proviso to Rule 4 (Ga) of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik Evam Ucchatar Madhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Sewa Shart) Niyamavali, 2006. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is eligible to apply for appointment to the post of librarian but for the age qualification and hence the petitioner has been advised to claim parity with trained teachers in whose case the impugned proviso permits relaxation of age in course of first and second transactions of recruitment. 4. The issue is no longer res integra in view of Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in 2009(1) PLJR (Amit Kumar vs. State of Bihar) and 2 judgment and order dated 23.01.2009 passed in CWJC No. 18065/2008 (Bishwanath Roy & Ors. vs The State of Bihar & Ors) . The latter Division Bench has been extracted in paragraph-17 of the judgment in the case of Amit Kumar vs. State of Bihar (Supra). The discussions made clearly show that the issue as to whether the trained teachers and the librarian shall constitute one class or fall in different classes has been considered and it has been held in no uncertain terms that librarian constitutes a different class and because of sufficient number of qualified persons being available, the upper age limit for eligibility has been retained while the same has been relaxed for trained teachers in view of non availability of required number of trained teachers and in view of judgments and directions of this Court and of the Supreme Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)