IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2551 of 2010 SURESH DAS, Son of Shri Yugeswar Das, Resident of Village-Narayanpur Harpur, Post Office and Police Station-Pusa, District- Samastipur. --------–petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Director Madhyamik Siksha Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.Deputy Director Madhyamik Siksha Government of Bihar, Patna. 6.District Education Officer, Samastipur. 7.District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur ----------Respondents. With CWJC No.2716 of 2010 Ghanshyam Singh, Son of Shri Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Village+Post Office- Vishnupur Bathuaa, police Station-Pusa, District Samastipur. ----------Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Secretary personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Director Madhyamik Siksha Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.Deputy Director Madhyamik Siksha Government of Bihar, Patna. 6.District Education Officer, Samastipur. 7.District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.—Res 2 ------------ 3 18-02-2010 Heard Mr. H. S. Himkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, learned counsel for the Intervener. The present writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring Rule 4(Ka)VII(a) of the Bihar Zila Parisad Madhyamik and Ucchatar Madhymik Sikshak (Niyozan and Sewa Sarta) Sansodhan Neyamawali 2008 and Rule 4(Ka)VII(a) of the Bihar Nagar Nikaya Madhyamik and Ucchatar Madhyamik Sikshak (Niyozan and Sewa Sarta) Amendment Rule 2008 as unconstitutional and for grant of ancillary reliefs. Mr. Himkar, learned counsel for the petitioners did he not press the challenge relating to the Constitutional validity of the Rules and restricted his prayer to Clause-iii of the relief clause. Clause-iii of the relief clause reads as under:- ―For issuance of necessary direction to the Respondents to treat the equivalent degree/Certificate of Bachelor of Arts form the other recognized University Educational institution including the degree of Sahitya Alankar of Hindi 3 Vidya Peeth, Deoghar, to be equivalent and at par with Graduation Degree of the Universities of Bihar.‖ It is urged by Mr. Himkar, learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5129 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) along with other matters decided on 17-11-2009 has conferred certain benefits to the petitioners therein and similar relief be granted to the present petitioners. In Sanjay Kumar (Supra) this Court has held thus:- ―There are large number of legal authorities for the proposition that the courts should attempt to save the vires of provisions if it is possible by reading down the provision or by appropriate interpretation. We are of the view that considering the nature of the rules which can be changed by executive notification at any time, the interest of all will be best served by interpreting relevant rules so that condition no.1 of eligibility requiring graduate degree from a recognized University shall also include equivalent degree from any institution recognized by the State of Bihar. In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding we have to now consider what relief should be given to the petitioners in respect of on-going selection process. There is no dispute that no appointment letters have been issued to the successful candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have already applied pursuant to the 4 advertisement. It does appear from the submission made at the Bar that process of selection has advanced considerably since the advertisement published in the Month of August, 2008. At this stage it may not be in the interest of State and the public to delay the recruitment process unnecessarily by extending reliefs to those who did not move this Court by asking the authorities to issue fresh advertisement. Hence, we direct the respondents not to issue appointment letters to the candidates for the post of Librarian even if they have been selected. The selection process for this post will be redone after taking into consideration fairly and in accordance with the guidelines the applications of both the petitioners who have already applied. If on such fair consideration the petitioners also enter into the zone of the selected candidates then they will also be entitled to be appointed along with other such candidates. These directions will be applicable only for those districts for which the petitioners have applied. In order to avoid further delay we direct the respondents to complete the process of selection and appointment as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.‖ Relying on the said decision it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that similar relief should be granted to the petitioners who have applied for appointment on the post of Librarian relating to district 5 Muzaffarpur. It is worth noting in the earlier writ petition the Division Bench restricted relief to those districts for which petitioners have applied. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that the order passed by earlier Division Bench, being restrictive in nature, scope thereof cannot be expanded by another Bench. It is also canvassed by him that in the said order a direction was issued to complete process of selection and appointment as early as possible. Be it noted, an affidavit has been filed by the State stating, inter-alia, as under:- ―That it is also submitted that as the Hon’ble Court by the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2009 was pleased to hold that the directions given by it in the said order would be applicable only for those districts for which the petitioners of C.W.J.C. no.5129 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No.18039 of 2008 had applied, it has also been decided that except the District covered by the said order dated 17.11.2009 (i.e, Katihar, Purnea, Aurangabad, Bhagalpur, Kishanganj, Banka, Darbhanga, Araria, Gaya, Saharsa and Madhepura) the process of appointment be proceeded with and to make appointment on the post of Librarian for Secondary and senior 6 Secondary Schools for which the dates of Counseling have been fixed as 25.2.2010, 3.3.2010, 5.3.2010 and 8.3.2010 for Secondary and Senior Secondary Schools under Municipal Corporation Nagar Parishad, Nagar panchayat for Zila Parishasd, respectively on the terms as contained in letter bearing Memo No.207 dated 17.2.2010 of the Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.‖ In support of said stand letter dated 17.2.2010 contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has been pressed into service. On a perusal of Annexure-A time schedule for counseling and issuance of appointment letter is luculent. There also dates, namely, 25.2.2010, 3.3.2010, 5.3.2010 and 8.3.2010 are disclosed. Submission of Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General for the State is when last date for counseling and appointment has been fixed, at this juncture if the cases of the petitioners are taken into consideration it will bring in an anomalous situation and it would be extremely difficult to proceed with the appointment. Mr. Himkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, though date of counseling has been fixed for the process of appointment it would take long time to be 7 finalized and, therefore, benefit of the Division Bench order passed on earlier occasion should be extended to the petitioners. What we could have done had the petitioners come on an earlier point of time when others had come is quite different. It is worth noting advertisement is of the year 2008. There had been a direction by this Court in a public interest litigation commanding the State to verify the certificates furnished by finally selected candidates which took long time. Thereafter in the second round of litigation provision was read down to confer benefit to the petitioners therein in respect of districts. In view of the obtaining facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, at this juncture it would be inappropriate to issue any further direction to consider the cases of the petitioners for being appointed on the post of Librarian. However, if order of the Division Bench is not assailed and attains finality, petitioners can rely on the same for future appointment. Intervener also would be entitled to the said benefit. 8 With the aforesaid observations the writ petitions stand disposed of. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)