IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16340 of 2008 --- Sushma Kumari Shrivastava wife of Premadhar Srivastava, resident of Quarters No.C/33, Road no.3, P.O.: G.P.O., P.S. Gardanibagh, Patna – 800 001 ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Director Secondary & Senior Secondary Schools, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Deputy Director, Senior & Senior Secondary Schools, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna ………… Respondents with CWJC. No.18065 of 2008 --- 1. Bishwanath Roy, son of late Saryug Roy, resident of Village – Jaiyazpatti, P.S. Dalsinghsarai, District – Samastipur 2. Ashok Kumar Prasad, son of late Nirmal Prasad, resident of village – Garhsisai, P.S. Vidyapatinagar, District – Samastipur ……. …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna ……… …….. Respondents - 2 - For the petitioners : Mr. Udit Narain Singh, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State :Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG – III Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi JC to AAG – III ----------- 4 23-01-2009 Petitioners intend to offer their candidature for appointment to the post of Librarian but because of the fact that they have crossed the upper age limit, their prayer is that no upper age limit be fixed for appointment to the post of Librarian. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under Article 243 G of the Constitution of India and sections 73 and 146 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 framed Bihar Zila Parishad - Madhyamik Awam Uchchttar Madhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Seva Shart) Niyamawali, 2006. Rule 4 (Ga) which provides for the age limit for eligibility, reads as follows:- “ (x ) vk;q :- ftl o"kZ fu;kstu fd;k tk jgk gks ml o"kZ ds igyh vxLr dks mEehnokj dh vf/kdre vk;q lhek ogh gksxh tks jkT; ljdkj (dkfeZSd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx) }kjk le; - le; ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk; / fodykax mEehnokjksa dks vf/kdre mez lhek esa 10 o"kZ dh NwV nh tk;sxh/ ijUrq f’k{kd dh izf’kf{kr Js.kh ds fu;kstu ds izFke ,oa f}rh; fu;kstu esa vf/kdre mez lhek {kkUr jgsxh /” - 3 - Thus, the aforesaid rule does not prescribe any age limit for appointment of teachers in the trained category in first and second phases of appointment. It is the grievance of the petitioners that when there is no upper age limit in the category of trained teacher, not providing the same benefit for appointment to the post of Librarian is discriminatory. Mr. Udit Narain Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC. No.18065 of 2008 and Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, representing the petitioner in CWJC No.16340 of 2008 contend that the aforesaid action is discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General – III , however, contends that Librarian and trained teacher constitute different and distinct class and, hence no question of discrimination arises. He points out that upper age limit has been relaxed so far as the trained teachers are concerned as large number of teachers are required to be appointed which is not in the case of the Librarian. It has also been pointed out that in view of the direction of this court and the undertaking of the State Government before the Supreme Court that as - 4 - many as trained teachers are available shall be appointed, there was no upper age limit fixed in this category. He also points out that Librarian constitutes a different class and because of sufficient number of qualified persons being available, upper age limit for eligibility has been fixed. Having considered the rival submission, we are of the opinion that the trained graduates and Librarian constitute different class and, therefore, the complaint of discrimination is absolutely misconceived. What should be the upper age limit for appointment is primarily the prerogative of the employer and interference by this court is called for only in such cases where there is apparent discrimination. The case in hand does not fall within the said exception. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Both the writ applications stand dismissed. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S.K Sharma J.