Nutan Kumari and Another vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. The dispute is very limited in the present writ application. The two petitioners were applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer in terms of an advertisement issued in the Employment News dated 11-17 February, 2006. Petitioners were called for counseling based on their application and declaration of experience but when it came down to final appointment the same was not offered to them. This according to the petitioners is in conflict with the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

The post code of which the petitioners are aspirants is P-06. It lays down that the minimum qualification shall be bachelors degree with 50% marks and having minimum five years experience in the field of primary and adult education. This experience has been further explained in later part of the advertisement. Petitioners'' case is that they are graduate and they have five years of experience but this experience is prior to acquisition of their bachelors degree. In that view of the matter, they are very much eligible to be appointed.

The stand on behalf of the respondents is that the advertisement with regard to the minimum qualification cannot be interpreted to mean that a person who has acquired experience even prior to acquiring a bachelors degree would meet the requirements of the advertisement. The advertisement is very clear that the experience of five years talks about experience acquired after the bachelors degrees'' acquisition and not prior to the same. In this regard reliance is being placed upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. S. Gopalakrishnan, (2001)2 SCC 362. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar matter had held that when in addition to the qualification experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualifications and not before obtaining such qualification. If this is the law then the respondents have committed no wrong in not treating the past experience of these petitioners prior to acquisition of their bachelors degree. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as having no merit.