IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7365 of 2011 1. The General Manager, Central Railway (N.E.Railway), East Northern Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Northern Railway, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Northern Railway N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 4. The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur………Petitioners/Respondents in Original Application. Versus 1. Shyam Bihari Paswan, son of Sri Hirawan Paswan, resident of Mohalla-Karkatpur, P.O.& P.S. –Korhigola, District-Rohtas. 2. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Shiv Bihari Singh, Resident of Village-Brahmpur, P.O. & P.S.-Brahmpur, District- Buxar……………Respondents/Applicants in Original Application For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar Mr. Rajiv Krishna Bariar ------------ 2. 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 15th September, 2010 whereby O.A. No. 273 of 2008 preferred by the two respondents/applicants has been allowed on the ground of law laid down by this Court and also by the Tribunal that the degree of Madhyama awarded by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, established by the State of Bihar by law is equivalent to degree of matriculation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advertisement contained in Annexure-3 prescribes the eligibility qualification to be matriculation and any equivalent degree under 10 + 2 system. He doubted whether Madhyama is under 10 + 2 or 2 not. It is a common knowledge that next degree, higher to Madhyama is “Sanskrit Shashtri” which is equivalent to intermediate and the system conforms to 10 + 2 system. The only other issues raised before us was that the Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad should have been approached by the applicant in view of a clause in the advertisement. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that no such objection on ground of territorial jurisdiction was raised before the Tribunal. On such new ground, we do not think it proper to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We find no good ground to take a different view. The writ petition is dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)