IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6761 of 2007 1. Keshav Prasad, son of Sri Ramjanam Ram, resident of Village Durgapur, P.O. and P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 2. Shyam Sundar Ram, son of Sri Ambika Ram, resident of Village Oyena, P.O. and P.S. kudra, District Rohtas at Sasaram … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate,Rohtas,Sasaram. 3. The Additional Colector, In-charge Nazarat, Rohtas 4. The Deputy Colelctor, In-charge Nazarat, Rohtas and Sub-divisison Nazarat, Sasaram, Rohtas. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram at Rohtas … … Respondents. For the petitioners: Mr.S.C. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi ---------------------------------- 2. 15.12.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraphs 3, 15 of the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 3. The petitioners were engaged to serve as candidate peons in the Collectorate, Sasaram, and its attached offices during the period between 1984-90. Considering their satisfactory service rendered as candidate peon they have been empanelled from time to time but could not be appointed on Class IV posts in the Collectorate, its attached offices and the offices of line Departments for want of vacancy. 4. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 6.10.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 869, 870 both of 2 2000, Annexure-3, the authorities have prepared panel for appointment of candidate peons on Class IV post in the Collectorate and its attached offices which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5. It appears that candidature of petitioner no.1 for appointment on Class IV post in the Collectorate and attached offices was rejected as he became over age on 25.4.1997 which is evident from the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 7.12.1999, Annexure-2. Petitioner No.2, though not over age but has not been considered for being appointed against Class IV post in the Collectorate and attached offices on the ground that he has not passed Class VIII examination which is minimum educational qualification required for appointment on Class IV post in the Collectorate and its attached offices. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the ground taken to disqualify the petitioners from being appointed on Class IV post is wholly arbitrary as they were engaged to work as candidate peons between 1984-90 in the light of the instructions of the Govt. contained in circular letter dated 3.12.1980 in which there is no such requirement for a candidate peon to pass Class VIII for being appointed as Class IV employee in the Collelctorate. As regards disqualification on the ground of being over age, it is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners that candidate peons are to be 3 empanelled for appointment in the light of instruction contained in Govt. Circular letter dated 3.12.1980 as clarified from time to time vide Circular letter dated 26.5.1987 and 29.5.2004 which inter alia requires that candidate peon who has been empanelled has to wait for his turn for appointment on Class IV post in the Collectorate, its attached offices and the offices of other line Departments, meanwhile if the candidate peon becomes over age, upper age limit is required to be relaxed in his case. Learned counsel further submitted that requirement of having passed Class VIII for securing appointment as Class IV employee was prescribed for the first time in the year 2004 and such qualification will not apply to those who are serving the Collectorate and its attached offices as candidate peon prior to the issue of the circular. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the Case of Sachi Kant Jha alias Suchi Kant Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.( 2011(1) P.L.J.R. 139. 7. Counsel for the State has opposed the submission but he does concede the fact that the petitioner no.1,2 were empanelled before they became over age, qualification of passing Class VIII examination for securing appointment on Class IV post in the Collectorate was prescribed. 8. From the submissions noted above, it is 4 evident that Petitioner no.1 was engaged to serve as candidate peon when he was not over age for appointment on Class IV post, he became over age while waiting for his turn for appointment on Class IV post accordingly, I direct that the case of petitioner no.1 be considered for appointment on Class IV post in Collectorate, its attached offices taking into account his position in the panel irrespective of the fact that he has subsequently become over age. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, he also was engaged to serve as candidate peon prior to issue of circular of 2004 prescribing Class VIII qualification for securing appointment on Class IV post. As such, he is also qualified for such appointment. 9. Necessary compliance of this order be made as early as possible, in any case, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 10. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Kanth ( V.N.Sinha, J.)