IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6385 of 2011 Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Ram Jeet Singh R/o village-Mahadi Chak, PO- Madhopur, PS- Bihta, Distt.- Patna-------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban & Housing, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Nodal Officer, Department of Urban & Housing, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance competitive Examination Board, Patna---------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 2.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. An advertisement was issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Bihar. This advertisement was for appointment on the post of what is known as City Manager, to be placed under various urban local bodies, on contract basis, to begin with for a period of one year. The period of one year could be extended subsequently dependent upon their quality of work and on the basis of the educational qualification given in the brochure MBA/P.G. Degree/ Diploma in Public Administration/P.G. Degree in Town Management/Planning & Development from recognized institution/ university. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was allowed to sit for examination in which he was successful. But when it came down to final selection his name did not figure in the list notified by the respondents. He sought information under Right to Information Act which was provided by the Department as would be evident from perusal of annexure-9 dated 4.2.2011. The reason for non-selection of the petitioner is that he does not have a regular MBA degree but his MBA degree is labeled 2 as MBA (Executive). The information given under Right to Information indicates the kind of degree which was not considered to be valid degree for appointment in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondents. Since this did not satisfy the petitioner he even filed application for reconsideration of the matter before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department which too was rejected. Therefore the writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason given by the respondents seems to be arbitrary and a distinction is sought to be made between one MBA degree and the degree which petitioner had obtained after going through the rigors of education and examination like the regular students of the institution from where he obtained the degree. The word MBA must be given the widest meaning and petitioner’s claim ought to have been considered. The stand of the State is in support of their earlier communication. According to them the advertisement is unambiguous as it has mentioned MBA degree. It means full fledged MBA degree from recognised university and not variants or different shades of MBA degree. The advertisement must be construed strictly and not diluted to suit or bring into its fall any other degree which was never contemplated and are available off the shelf from all kinds of institutions into this trade. They also inform the Court that appointments have already been carried out on the basis of selection made in August, 2010 itself and therefore nothing is left to be done on the issue by way of relief to the present petitioner. 3 If the petitioner had made out a case for discrimination or arbitrariness, merely because the exercise had been carried out and completed would not have prevented this Court to give suitable relief or direction to him. But admitted position is that the petitioner had MBA degree (Executive) which has been obtained by working people on the basis of part time participation in such course. Obviously it is a diluted kind of degree which has been obtained by the petitioner which may not exactly fit with the requirement of the advertisement where what is stated is MBA degree and not variants of it in any hue. This court is not inclined to pass any order in favour of the petitioner in view of the reasons indicated above. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)