IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11820 of 2011 Rina Kumari wife of Sri Ramakant Roy, resident of Village-Dariyapur, P.S. Masaurhi, P.O.- Gangachak, District-Patna. ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Patna. 6. The District Education Officer, Patna. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 8. The Block Education Officer, Block- Phulwarisharif, Patna. 9. The Block Education Officer, Block- Danapur, Patna. 10. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority at Patna, Rajkiya Balika Secondary High School, Bankipur. ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Abhay Kumar Kashyap,Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.A.G.No.12. Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, A.C. to A.A.G.12. 2 21.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 29.12.2010 passed in Case No.103/173/2010 by which District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for employment. The rejection has been based on two grounds. Firstly that the order of receiving of applications for such employment was in the year 2008 whereas the result of the petitioner with regard to her getting basic qualification for her appointment is 17.3.2010 and secondly on the ground that the certificate of Nursery Teachers Training and Baby Teachers Training though has been held to be equivalent by order of this Court but would not come within eligibility for such employment. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a wrong premis since eligibility or otherwise can only be with regard to a particular certificate and course and such qualification. If this Court had declared that Baby Teachers Training certificate was not a fit qualification for employment it cannot include Nursery Teachers Training and no order could have been passed with regard to issue of her not being eligible at the time when the advertisement for such employment was issued ,i.e., in the year 2008. He submits that in a similar case where the person concerned had acquired eligibility much later to the date of issuance of advertisement, the Appellate Authority had interfered by holding him eligible for such appointment.He says that in view of the above his case ought to have been considered and should not have been dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that from the fact that petitioner admittedly acquired such qualification after more than 1½ years from the date of advertisement with regard to minimum qualification, the law being well settled, no interference is required in the impugned order in as much as there cannot be any variation or change in the terms and conditions of the advertisement once the same is published without there being any specific corrigendum with regard to any relaxation. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. Once advertisement came to be issued, persons who were eligible as per the terms and conditions of the said advertisement are only eligible and fit for consideration. In 3 the present case petitioner cannot claim her case to be considered since admittedly she acquired the qualification much later. However, learned counsel has pointed out that at the time of actual consideration and counselling she possessed the requisite qualification and as per the direction of the department also such counselling had to be done between the period 22.12.2010 to 30.12.2010 and much prior to that date she had acquired the requisite qualification her case ought to have also been considered. This Court is unable to grant such relief for the reason that the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, since the department had come out with a letter fixing the date during which such procedure for appointment had to be completed and if the petitioner had acquired the requisite qualification prior to that date then it is for the department concerned to consider the case of the petitioner and issue appropriate direction, if required. The contention that in a similar case the authority has passed the orders in favour of some person shall not make the case of the petitioner better for consideration for the simple reason that wrong precedent cannot grant relief to the petitioner. However, this Court cannot look into the issue for the present. If so advised, let the petitioner file a representation before the department which shall be considered in the facts and circumstances of its case taking into consideration the policy of the government. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off with the liberty aforesaid. If the petitioner files a representation within two weeks from today the same would be considered and a reasoned 4 order passed upon the same within six weeks thereafter. AnilKrSinha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)