IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7366 of 2009 1. ARUN KUMAR RANJAN, SON OF LATE BECHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAISA, P.S. PARBATTA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. 2. SANJEET PANDEY, SON OF LATE MOHAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOUL, P.O. KAPASIYAMA, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 3. AMAR PRAKASH MISHRA SON OF DAYAKANT MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANSARPUR, P.S. MUFASSIL, DISTRICT KHAGARIA 4. UMA SHANKAR SINGH SON OF SRI DINESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF RAJKUMARI SADAN, BAJRANG PATH, BAJRANGPURI, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. 5. NIRANJAN HAZARI SON OF LATE KAMLESHWAR HAZARI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAJENDRA NAGAR, P.S. CHITRAGUPT NAGAR, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. 6. AMRENDRA NATH SINGH, SON OF SRI KEDAR NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. MAI, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 7. ANIL KUMAR SON OF LATE MATHURA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJPUR KOYALBIGHA, P.S. THARTHARI, DISTRICT NALANDA. 8. ANIL KUMAR SUMAN SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. MAI, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 9. GHANSHYAM SHUKLA SON OF SRI CHANDRABHUSHAN SHUKLA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHISBANIA, P.S. LAURIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 10. ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY SON OF SRI RAM CHANDRA UPADHYAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BINAHI, P.S. BHITAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 11. NIRAJ KUMAR OJHA, SON OF SRI DHIRENDRA OJHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONBARSA, P.O. SUNDARGAWAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 12. NEERAJ KUMAR, SON OF LATE ASHOK KUMAR MALTIAR, RESIDENT OF ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO.11, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. 13. RAM RANJAN KUMAR SON OF SRI SACHCHIDANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYAGAON SATKHUTTI (GOPAPAR), P.S. PARBATTA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF BIHAR 3. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. - 2 - 4. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. --------- For the Petitioners : M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur,Adv. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad,Adv. Ravi Ranjan-1, Adv. For the State : M/S P.K. Shahi,A.G. Sanjay Kumar Pandey,Adv. For the Union of India:Mr.S.N. Pathak,S.C.C.4. -------- 13.7.2009. Petitioners are assailing the Clause-2 of the advertisement dated 13.6.2009 (Annexure-1) where under appointment on the post of Subject Matter Specialist on contract basis has been advertised. It is submitted on their behalf, under clause-2 of the advertisement only those who were below 37 years in the un-reserved category and 40 years in the reserved category as on 1.1.2008 are eligible to apply. Such clause of the advertisement according to the petitioners is violative of the resolution of the State Government dated 18.7.2007(Annexure-7) where under State Government has resolved to enhance the maximum age for appointment on contract basis upto 65 years as is evident from Clause-8 of the resolution. In this connection, it is further submitted with reference to the order of the Director, - 3 - Agriculture bearing Memo No.4554 dated 2nd July,2008 that the Director has instructed the authorities including the District Magistrate and others to ensure appointment on contract basis in the light of the resolution of the personnel department dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure-7), from amongst those who are below 60 years of age. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I direct the petitioners to approach the State Government in the Agriculture Department with a representation requesting the department to reconsider the Clause-2 of the advertisement dated 13.6.2009 (Annexure-1) and to make it in tune with the resolution of the government dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure-7). It goes without saying that while considering the representation, the authorities will bear in mind that the appointment on similar post in the Agriculture Department has not been made for over 15 years and petitioners have become over age during those years. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the authorities should fix the maximum age under - 4 - N.H./ clause-2 of the advertisement. It further goes without saying that in the event representation is allowed necessary corrigendum modifying clause-2 be issued and the application form of petitioners be accepted. This application is accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to respondent no.3 through fax at the cost of the petitioners. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)