IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5752 of 2010 Arun Kumar, son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Bhushan Lane, East Lohanipur, PS Kadam Kuan, District Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Transport Commissioner, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, PO Veterinary College, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, PO Veterinary College, Patna. 4. Members of Re-Scrutiny Committee, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna under the Chairmanship of the Secretary – Respondents. 5 23-4-2010 The intervention petition on behalf of Ranjeet Kumar to be added as a party being I.A. No. 3828 of 2001 is allowed. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector against the advertisement issued in 2007. After scrutiny of the applications, 9 applications were found to be valid whereas 174 applications were rejected. This court in CWJC No. 2371 of 2010 and its analogous cases constituted a committee for re- scrutinizing the applications of all the applicants including those who have been called for interview. After re-scrutiny only 20 candidates were found to be eligible for being considered for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Several writ petitions have been filed against the decision of the committee which have been disposed of by various orders of this court. The application of Arun Kumar was rejected on the ground that the experience certificates submitted by him did not meet the criteria laid down in the advertisement. The experience certificates of Lawly Sen & Company and Maurya Motors Limited did not contain the words “supervise” as required by the advertisement. The 2 experience certificates submitted on September 4 deals with the experience of repair, maintenance and over hauling of heavy vehicles. The objection is that the experience certificate does not contain the word “inspection”. Referring to the experience certificate contained in Annexure 5 series, it is said that that the petitioner was working as a supervisor in Lawly Sen & Company from January 1993 to January 1998 and also mentions that he has experience in repair, maintenance, over hauling of wide range of Mahindra & Mahindra vehicles, both diesel and petrol. I.A. No. 3828 of 2010: This application is allowed and applicant of this interlocutory application is added as party. The I.A. has been filed in this case on behalf of one Ranjeet Kumar, one of the candidates who were amongst those whose experience certificates was found up to the mark and had appeared in the interview held on 12.4.2010. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria and is not eligible to be appointed. Learned counsel draws this court’s attention to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as Bihar Parivahan (Takniki) Samwarg Niyamawali, 2003. Part 3 of the rules deals with the experience required by the incumbent for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The rules reads as follows : “5. Eligibility – The eligibility criteria for candidate 3 for direct recruitment in the cadre on the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector shall be following:- (a) Educational Qualification:- (i) Matriculate with science in the examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board or passed in equivalent examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education or any other recognized Board/Council. (ii) Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering in three years diploma course from an institution recognized by the Bihar State Board of Technical Education / Any other State Board of Technical Education / All India Council for Technical Education. (b) Experience:- After obtaining diploma a candidate should have at least two years working experience in case of Diploma in Automobile Engineering and five years in case of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering of repair, overhauling and inspection in a large automobile engineering workshop registered under the Factories Act which under takes repairing of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods and passenger vehicle fitted with petrol and diesel engine. For candidates having Post-Diploma in Automobile Engineering one year of working experience shall be essential. (c) Other – (i) The candidate must have a valid Driving Licence of Motor Cycles, light motor vehicles and heavy goods and passenger vehicle.” It is submitted that these rules have to be strictly followed and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner has been 4 made because the petitioner does not have the required experience as provided under the rules. This court has already interpreted the meaning of the words “repair”, “over hauling” and “inspection” in its order passed in CWJC No. 5859/2010 and its analogous cases. Therefore, the objection will be dealt with in accordance with the interpretation given by this court. An objection has been raised that the petitioner does not possesses the qualification of having a driving licence of heavy motor vehicle as provided under the rules. It is further submitted that the driving licence produced by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 1/9 and the Paripatra II differ from each other. The document at Annexure 1/9 is, dated 5.7.2006 and was apparently submitted by the petitioner at an earlier point of time, which indicates that the petitioner does not have the driving licence of heavy motor vehicles whereas Annexure 1/10 is signed by the District Transport Officer, Patna, dated 6.9.2007 has been attested on 31.5.2007 which indicates that there is some hanky panky in obtaining the documents which reveals that the petitioner has a driving licence for heavy motor vehicle as well. The petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the date is nothing but a slip of pen and as such candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected on this ground. This aspect of the matter should be examined by the respondent Commission/Committee. If the scrutinizing committee is satisfied with respect to the driving licence submitted by the petitioners and finds that there is no anomaly in the same, then of course the committee shall ignore this 5 aspect, as the order of rejection does not indicate that the committee found any anomaly with respect to the driving licence and Paripartra II submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Giri has also argued that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the persons who met the criteria of having the requisite educational qualification and experience criteria, as laid down in the advertisement of 2007 ought to have been made party in the writ petition, as their rights would be affected. I do not think that this argument is tenable in view of the fact that twenty persons who have been interviewed are yet to be selected. It cannot be presumed that just because their candidature was accepted for the purposes of appearing in the interview, they would be found duly qualified and fit to hold the post at the interview. Besides this, the endeavour of the State Government and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission is to appoint best qualified persons as Motor Vehicle Inspectors and, therefore, this court cannot hold that twenty persons who were found eligible for the interview should form a separate class or have an edge over other persons who also meet the criteria as prescribed in the advertisement. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)