IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5721 of 2010 1. INLAND FISHERIES SOCIETIES THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RISHIKESH KASHYAP, S/O SHRI JIWACHH PD. SAHNI R/O IST FLOOR, MOTI BHAWAN, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S.- BUDHA COLONY, TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA 6. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA ----------- 2. 16.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. An advertisement was issued on 14.6.2009 for filling up posts on contract basis for two years from persons possessing the degree in graduation from a recognized institution in Agriculture Gardening, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries. The petitioners were B.Sc. Hons. in Industrial Fish and Fishery Vocational course from different Universities who also applied. They came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2 12834 of 2009 with the grievance that their qualification was not being considered as equivalent to graduation under the advertisement and graduate in a vocational course was not included in the advertisement. This Court declined interference holding that questions of equivalence of a qualification with that prescribed in the advertisement was for the employer to decide. The Court while declining to grant any mandamus disposed the writ application with liberty to represent. That has now been rejected by an order dated 8.12.2009. Counsel for the petitioner urged that it was not a decision of the State Government. Secondly, there has not been adequate consideration of technical aspects on the issue of equivalence. The counter affidavit of the respondent in Paragraph- 6 specifically states that the process of appointment under the advertisement had been completed on 30.4.2010. The issue of equivalence of qualification under the present advertisement has therefore become academic. There is no occasion for this Court to decide this academic issue at this stage. Needless to state that as and when the respondents may publish a fresh 3 advertisement and the petitioners are aggrieved of the same, upon a challenge made by them the issue whether the decision dated 8.12.2009 was that of the State Government or not shall remain open for consideration. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)