IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1743 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 917 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7948 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1743 of 2011 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Mishra, S/o Sri Basist Mishra, R/o Village- Siwan, P.O. + P.S.- Krghar, District- Rohtas .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 5. The District Panchayat Rajya Officer, Rohtas. 6. The Block Development Officer, Karaghar Block, Karaghar, Rohtas. 7. The Surpanch, Siwan Gram Panchayat, Siwan Karaghar, Rohtas. 8. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Naresh Singh, R/o village-Siriniyan, P.O.+P.S.-Krghar, District-Rohtas. .... Respondents/ Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey with Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates For the Respondents : …….. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 23-11-2011 Re: Interlocutory Application No. 7948 of 2011 The Delay of 18 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Patna High Court LPA No.1743 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 2 Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24th June 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 917 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant possesses a qualification of Madhayama awarded by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The appellant claims that the Madhayama awarded by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board is recognized by the State of Bihar as equivalent to Matriculation. The appellant being eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Katchahry he had applied for the said post. He was selected and placed at serial no. 1 on the merit list. Nevertheless, in view of the Government Notification dated 5th January 2009, the appellant has been denied appointment as Secretary, Gram Katchahry. Therefore, the writ petition. The writ petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. It may be noted that the appointment to the post of Secretary of Gram Katchahry in the State of Bihar is governed by the Secretary, Bihar Gram Katchahry, (Employment Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007. Rule 5 of the said Rules of 2007 provides for eligibility. Clause (a) (ii) thereof provided “The minimum educational qualification for the post of Secretary Gram Katchahry will be Matriculate.” Thus, Matriculate was the only qualification recognized for appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahry. Possession of any equivalent qualification by a candidate was of no consequence. Clearly, under Patna High Court LPA No.1743 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 3 the prevalent rules, the appellant was not eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Katchahry. If at all he were selected for such appointment, such selection was illegal and was of no consequence. The appellant on the basis of such selection cannot have a claim for appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahry. It, however, appears that pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 31st January 2008 passed in CWJC No. 13905 of 2007, the State Government has issued the impugned Notification dated 5th January 2009. By impugned Notification the State Government has amended Clause (a) (ii) of Rule 5 of the above referred Rules of 2007 with effect from 31st January 2008. As we have noted earlier the extant Rule 5 (a ) (ii) did not envisage any qualification other than matriculation; not even an equivalent qualification. The impugned Notification dated 5th January 2009 amends the said rule effective from 31st January 2008, i.e. effective from 31st January 2008 not only the matriculates but also candidates possessing equivalent qualification have been made eligible for appointment as the Secretary of the Gram Katchahry. What should be the date from which a rule should be made effective is a matter of policy. This Court exercising power of judicial review will not interfere with the policy decision of the State. The impugned amendment has obviously been made in compliance with the direction issued on 31st January 2008. Thus, actually on account of the impugned Notification dated 5th January 2009, the appellant has now become eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Katchahry. The challenge to the said Notification dated 5th January 2009 is wholly misconceived. Patna High Court LPA No.1743 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 4 The refusal to appoint the appellant was in consonance with then existing Rule 5 (a) (ii) of the Rules of 2007. No exception can be made about it. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that the petition is devoid of any merit, so is the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Devendra/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)