IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.844 of 2009 1. GYAN KUMAR, SON OF SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF DIGHI KHURD, P.O. DIGHI KALA, DISTRICT HAJIPUR, VAISHALI, PIN CODE – 844101. 2. GUDDI KUMARI, WIFE OF RAJEEV KUMAR, C/O LSHRI GIRI NATH SINGH, POKHARA MOHALLA, NAVIN CINEMA ROAD, NEAR DR. SUCHITA CHAUDHARY, HAJIPUR (VAISHALI) (BIHAR), PIN CODE – 844101. 3. MANISHA, WIFE OF C.K. SINGH, DAUGHTER OF SHRI UMA KANT SINGH, NORTH VIR KUVAR SINGH COLONY, POKHARA MOHALLA – HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. 4. VIVEK KUMAR, SON OF SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF DIGHI KHURD, P.O. ;DIGHI KALA, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI – 844101. 5. RAJEEV KUMAR, SON OF SAROJ KUMAR VERMA, MELA ROAD, SITAMARHI -2. 6. SHYAM BABU SUMAN, SON OF SHRI BRAHMA DEO SAH, RESIDENT OF SHRIRAMPUR, P.O. NARANGA, VIA – PARIHAR, DISTRICT – SITAMARHI. 7. JITENDRA KUMAR, SRI LAKSHMI SAH, RESIDENT OF NEAR – TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, INDUSTRIAL ROAD, RAJOPATTI, DISTRICT – SITAMARHI. PIN CODE – 843302. 8. SHASHI KUMAR, SON OF SRI MAHESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA, NAJARI, P.O. LAXMIPUR, DISTRICT – JAMUI, PIN CODE – 811312. 9. SANGITA KUMARI, WIFE OF VIVEK KUMAR, RESIDENT OF DIGHI KHURD, P.O. DIGHI KALA, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT – VAISHALI, PIN CODE – 844101. 10. REKHA KUMARI, WIFE AJIT KUMAR, C/O GIRINATH SINGH, POKHARA MOHALLA – HAJIPUR, DISTRICT – VAISHALI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. ALGAPPA UNIVERSITY, KARAIKUDI, PIN CODE – 63003. TAMILNADU, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. ----------- 2. 11.1.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. What qualification shall be recognized and acceptable is for the appointing authority to decide and not for the courts to stipulate. - 2 - Whether the qualification of Bachelor of Library Science obtained by the petitioners from the Alagappa University will be acceptable or not acceptable to the State authorities, whether it is recognized or unrecognized by the State authorities, the recognition by the U.G.C. and subsequent recognition as alleged by the Distance Education Council are matters primarily for the state to decide. Considering a similar claim for equivalence of qualification, the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2642 at paragraph- 12 has held as follows : “12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular - 3 - educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” This court, therefore, finds it difficult to pass any positive orders for consideration of the case of the petitioners based on the qualification from the Alagappa University. This court would have expected that the respondents shall lay down the qualifications and conditions including that of recognition prior to issuance of the advertisement itself. That shall be the proper and reasonable method of action from the point of view of reasonable man. If the respondents did not provide for the stipulations, and the petitioners’ claim that the institution was recognized from the University grants commission and the Distance Education Council also, let the State Government take a policy decision whether such a qualification is acceptable to it or not and consider the case of the petitioners - 4 - N.H./ accordingly expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt and production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. ( Navin Sinha,J.)