IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8086 of 2011 Vineeta Sharma@ Vineeta Pandey@ Vinita Sharma Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr.Devendra Pandey, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.P.18. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. 3 20.9.2011 On the requisition made by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Bihar Public Service Commission issued advertisement for filling up the posts of lecturers etc. in various streams for the State Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. We are concerned with regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of lecturer in Information Technology either in a Government Polytechnic or an Engineering College. The advertisement has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-9. The requirements in terms of educational qualification etc. has been laid down as Graduate in Information Technology with 1st Division as well as Post Graduate in Information Technology, again with 1st Division. 2. Petitioner filled up her application before the Bihar Public Service Commission ( hereinafter to be referred to as “B.P.S.C.”) on 20th March,2009. In the application form which has been annexed as Annexure-C series she has herself declared that she was a Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in the Computer Science with 1st division and was pursuing her Master of Technology in 4th Semester for Batch of the year2008 – 2010. The last date for filling of application as per the advertisement was 6.4.2009. 2 3. Petitioner was issued Admit Card by the B.P.S.C. but subsequently she was communicated that she was not eligible for consideration for appointment on the posts in question as she did not have the requisite educational qualification. Annexure-1& 2 are the orders in this regard which is being assailed in the present writ application. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure-1 & 2 are cryptic orders which does not give reason as to why petitioner was ineligible and that she was not given right of hearing. Petitioner had acquired eligibility prior to the date of interview which was supposed to be conducted by the B.P.S.C. In this background, the reasons for rejection is extraneous and a very good candidate having first division throuout is being prevented from participating in the interview denying her the right of being appointed as a lecturer in either of the institutions . 5. The stand of the B.P.S.C. is that issuance of an admit card itself does not create a right in favour of the petitioner or being called for interview. The application form of the petitioner was scrutinized and it was found that the petitioner had not yet acquired M.tech. degree in Information Technology on the date she had filled up the application form or before the last date of submission which is said to be 6.4.2009. Petitioner has annexed Annexure-8 which is the mark- sheet issued by the concerned University of M.tech. It is dated 25.9.2010 which is more than a year after the last date for filing such application for post of lecturer in an engineering college. For polytechnic her graduation degree was in Computer Science and not 3 I.T. 6. It is in this background that the Commission was forced to reject her application for being called for interviews and the communication contained in Annexures-1 and 2 is a confirmation of that position. 7. Petitioner approached the B.P.S.C. with her grievance on this count. Matter was examined and the earlier order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was communicated again vide order dated 18.5.2011 and 26.5.2011 contained in Annexure-D, series to the counter affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on a decision which has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swarn Lata Vrs. Union of India. Taking cue from the same B.P.S.C. should have given a broader meaning to eligibility and education by including computer science as part of Information Technology as was done in the case while interpreting the requirement of Diploma in Technology and Home Science in Swarn Lata case (supra). Another decision pressed into service is a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Chhathi Mishra @ Chhathu Mishra & anr. vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; reported in 2003 (2) P.L.J.R. 303. 9. None of the decisions cited above have applicability to the facts and issues raised in the writ application. In fact, in the opinion of the Court the law which has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vrs. Union of India & Ors. ; reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54, lays down the correct law on the issue. In this regard reliance has been placed on paragraphs 11,15 as 4 well as 20 of the said decision by counsel for B.P.S.C. The sum essence of the Apex Court decision which can be culled out from ratio laid down therein that the possession of the requisite educational qualification is a must and that qualification must be in place of on/or before the cut off date with regard to the eligibility of the candidate concerned. It cannot be the case of any candidate that acquisition of a degree or qualification prior to the date of interview is going to satisfy the requirement of eligibility of a candidate in matter of appointment to a public post. The word Information Technology is a specialized stream and Computer Science is just a part of it. Computer Science can never encompass Information Technology though it can be vice versa. 10. From the facts which has been culled out from the pleading of the petitioner she had not obtained a Post Graduate qualification on the cut off date which was fixed as 2.4.2009. This fact has neither been denied nor can be denied in view of the categorical statement made by the petitioner herself in her application which indicated that she was appearing for the M.Tech. Examination. In addition she was a graduate in Computer Science and not Information Technology. 11. If that be so, then taking queue from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar versus Union of India and Ors.(supra) the respondents have done no wrong in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she did not have the requisite educational qualification to be considered for being invited for interview or for appointment as such. 12. No case for issuance of mandamus is therefore 5 made out in the above circumstances. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification with regard to the posts in terms of the advertisement does not seem to be misplaced. 13. The writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit. AnilKrSinha (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)