IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9328 of 1994 MRS.ASHA SHARMA,wife of Shri Anil Kumar, resident of Mohalla Bhikhanpura, PS Khabra, District Muzaffarpur, at present Evaluation-in-charge, State Institute of Educational Technology, Officers’ Quarter, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, town and District Patna ….Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The State Institute of Educational Technology, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, Patna, through its Director 3. The Education Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar-cum- Chairman of the State Institute of Educational Technology, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, Patna 4. The Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Secretary 5. The Secretary, Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 6. Quasim Khurshid, son of name not known to the petitioner, Script Writer, State Institute of Educational Technology, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, Patna 7. Anil Kumar, son of name not known to the petitioner, Production Assistant, State Institute of Educational Technology, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, Patna 8.. Rabindra Kumar Awasthi, son of name not known to the petitioner, Production Assistant, State Institute of Educational Technology, SCERT Campus, Mahendru, PS Sultanganj, Patna …….Respondents ----------- 10- 17/8/2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.14, for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Sanjay Pandey for respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Bihar Public Service Commission), (hereinafter referred to as `the Commission’). This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 30.9.94 2 (Annexure 7), from the Commission to the petitioner, conveying their regret for not calling the petitioner for interview. The Commission has placed on record its counter affidavit. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Commission had issued advertisement no.16 of 1993, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Deputy Production Incharge in the State Institute of Educational Technology, Bihar. Various persons including the petitioner and respondent no.6 submitted their applications for consideration. The petitioner was not called for interview, and it was conveyed to her by Annexure-7. It appears that the petitioner fell short of the requisite minimum qualification. The advertisement had stipulated that the candidate should have minimum two years of working experience in this branch. The petitioner lacked the requisite experience and was, therefore, not called for interview. The petitioner promptly lodged the present writ petition which was for the first time taken up by this Court on 26.9.94. A Division Bench passed an 3 interim order, whereby the petitioner was allowed to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on the following day, i.e. 27.10.1994, provisionally and subject to the ultimate decision of this case. The petitioner did appear in the interview and was not selected. Respondent no.6 was instead selected. The matter was again taken up by this Court on 1.11.1995, on which date it was observed that the respondents, if so advised, may appoint, but the letter of appointment shall in terms state that in case this writ petition is allowed, the appointment shall be cancelled. 3. On a perusal of the materials on record, we are convinced that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification and was, therefore, rightly not called for interview. However, inspite of the Court’s indulgence, she did not succeed in the final selection. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl 4