IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1645 of 2009 1. SANJIV KUMAR SON OF SRI NITYANAND PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOGHARA, P.O.-AMARPUR, P.S.-MEDNI CHOUKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 2. SMT. SMITA BHARTI WIFE OF SRI DILIP KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GADI BISHANPUR, P.O. AND P.S. PIRI BAZAR, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 3. AMAR KUMAR MAHAN SON OF SRI RAMDEO MEHTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GADI BISHANPUR, P.O. AND P.S. PIRI BAZAR, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 4. PRATAP KUMAR SINGH SON OF MADAN MOHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANIKPUR, P.O. KAWADPUR, P.S. SURYAGADHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 5. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH SON OF LATE GOWARDHAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANCHIPUR CHANDRA TOLA, P.O. AMARPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 6. RANJIT KUMAR SON OF NITYANAND PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEODHARA, P.O. AMARPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 7. VIBHASH PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE NARAYAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKARCHAK, P.O. DIGHRI, P.S. SURYAGADHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ……….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, LAKHISARAI 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, LAKHISARAI ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate Mr. Shyameshwar Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.P.XIX ---------- 2. 3.2.2009 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as Panchayat Sikshak. Short facts giving rise to the present application are 2 that in response to the advertisement, petitioners offered their candidature for appointment as Panchayat Sikshak. They claim to have passed the matriculation examination from Bihar School Examination Board and also Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination from Hindi Vishwavidyalaya from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag. It is the contention of the petitioners that the same is equivalent to the training examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. Further it is recognized by the Government of India for the post and services under the Central Government. It is their grievance that though they are eligible, but they are not being considered for appointment and not called for counseling. According to the petitioners, qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination make them eligible. It has been pointed out that though in the advertisement, the institution i.e. Hindi Vishwavidyalaya Allahabad is mentioned but the qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination has not been mentioned and, as such, petitioners are eligible to the considered. Mr. Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination being equivalent to the certificate examination, petitioners have the right to be considered for appointment. 3 However, he is unable to show me any document of the State of Bihar i.e. the employer which had ever treated the qualification of the petitioners as equivalent to the training certificate. Further the advertisement itself contains a list of institutions whose degrees and diplomas are not recognized. Petitioners have obtained Baby Teachers Training Certificate from Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, which is one of the institutions mentioned in the list. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners possessed basic qualification for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2008(1) PLJR 583] in which it has been observed as follows : “7. Whether the rules governing recruitment for any post, in eligibility criterion prescribed for the post must include other equivalent qualification is a matter of legislative policy and not for this Court to decide. Even where rules provide for alternate to main and substantive qualification by recognizing equivalent qualification to be taken into consideration, the question of considering any qualification to be equivalent to another qualification, is a matter of expert body to decide. Therefore, it is inept for this Court to enter into that territory and decide upon equivalence. From a plain reading of the provision contained in 1983 rules, it would appear that various teachers’ training courses referred therein are training qualifications of different grades and cannot by any means be equivalent with each other, a priori. It hardly needs argument that unless the matter is examined by any expert body, 4 ordinarily, a diploma course is not equivalent for a degree. Likewise, a certificate by itself is not equivalent to a degree or diploma in the subject.” It is submitted that in the advertisement, no such condition that degrees and other qualifications have to be obtained from a recognized institution is mentioned and therefore petitioners, though have not obtained teachers training certificate from a recognized institution, still they are eligible. This submission has been noted only to be rejected. Whenever advertisement prescribes certain qualifications, such qualification has to be obtained from recognized institution. The qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Examination is not a recognized qualification prescribed by the employer, hence petitioners cannot claim consideration on that basis. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed in limine. Narendra/ (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.)