IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6784 of 2009 1 Sima Kumari, wife of Sri Amrendra Ajay, resident of C/o Ram Swaroop Singh, West Karyanand Nagar, Ward No 6, Near Gyan Bharti, Lakhisarai, District – Lakhisarai 2 Radha Kumari, wife fo Jay Prakash Prasad, resident of village & PO – Rajopatti, P S Dumara, District – Sitamarhi 3 Manju Kumari, wife of Jitendra Kumar Pal, resident of Village and PO – Babura, P S – Barahara, District – Bhojpur -Petitioners Versus 1 The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2 Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3 Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4 Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5 National Power Training Institute (under the Ministry of Power, Government of India), NPTI, Sector 33, Faridabad through its Driector -Respondents *** For the petitioners : M/s Shivaji Pandey, Sr Advocate & Sourendra Pandey, Advocate For the respondents : M/s Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr Advocate & Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate *** 6 17.09.2009 The only dispute in the present case is whether 3 years’ Diploma in Electronics Instrumentation and Control Engineering is equivalent to 3 years’ Diploma in Electricals/Electronics. Petitioners had applied for a job in Bihar State Electricity Board. They were found ineligible because they had a 3 years Diploma in Electronics Instrumentation and Control Engineering but, as per the advertisement, they did not have the 3 years’ Diploma in Electronics/Electricals. This is what is challenged. 2 Counter affidavit has been filed and rejoinder thereto has also been filed. Pleadings, being complete, parties consent to the disposal of this case at this stage itself. It is not in dispute that petitioner was earlier selected by the Electricity Board itself and appointed to the same very position to work on contract basis. Thereafter, the present advertisement was issued for the same very position. In the said advertisement, position of petitioners and their like was noticed and it was provided that they would be given preference. Petitioners applied but notwithstanding the fact that they had held the very position under the Board itself, they have now been disqualified on the ground that they did not have been requisite educational qualification. They had 3 years’ Diploma in Electronics Instrumentation and Control Engineering whereas the requirement was 3 years’ Diploma in Electricals/Electronics. On behalf of the Board, Mr Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel submits that Board having specified 3 years Diploma in Electronics/Electricals as qualification and petitioners not having the same, Board committed no mistake in disqualifying the petitioners or finding the petitioners ineligible. Shorn of all disputes, petitioners have annexed as Annexure-9, a letter issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar wherein various equivalence and new nomenclatures have been listed in respect of Diploma Courses. In the said list, it is clearly shown that instrumentation and 3 Control is same as Electronic Engineering with a further note that Diploma in Instrumentation and Control is merged with Electrical/Electronics/Mechanical depending upon the orientation of the course. Petitioner has further annexed Annexure-10, which is the letter of the All India Council for Technical Education, a statutory body of Government of India where a similar qualification has been given to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi wherein it has been clearly stated that 3 years Diploma in Instrumentation and Control Engineering may be treated as equivalent to 3 years Diploma in Electricals/Electronics for the purposes of employment in Industry only. There is no dispute that the Board, in its function, is merely an Industry. In my view, it has rightly been submitted on behalf of petitioners by Mr Shivajee Pandey, learned Senior Counsel that in view of these 2 clarifications, the stand of the Board is vitiated and the Board would be required to reconsider the matter. Mr Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the Board has sought clarification from National Power Training Institute (NPTI), New Delhi in this connection. It may also be noted here that for this recruitment, petitioners’ names were sent from NPTI to the Board which recommendation stands rejected by the impugned action. In my view, having considered the entire matter, as above, it is only appropriate that the authorities of the Board 4 should reconsider the matter in light of what is noted in this order and take an appropriate decision immediately without further waste of time. It is expected that a decision in this matter will be taken not later than two months from today and the positions, if not already filled up, shall not be filled up any further till matter is finalized. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)