AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 25-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Technical Service Commission (B.T.S.C).
The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-
“(A)A mandamus commanding the respondent authorities Add the experience mark in counseling dated 21.12.2021 of the petitioner in Advertisement No.-3/2021 as a post of Fisheries Development Officer in Bihar technical Service Commission Patna where and whereunder in the advertisement Clause 3(ii) experience 5 mark per year provided to the candidate belongs to Fisheries or Agriculture or other Department in Bihar Govt.
(B)A mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities issued the selection of petitioner list on the basis of experience certificate in Bihar Govt. on the post of fisheries development Officer.
(C)Any other writ or writs for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of Advertisement No. 03/2021 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.T.S.C.’), the post of Fisheries Development Officer has been advertised. Counsel submits that the petitioner possesses the qualification and also the experience certificate and pay slip for more than five years issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Madhubani in the year 2021. He submits that the said application form was filled up through online mode and well within time and the roaster wise cut-off marks prepared and published in the B.T.S.C., Patna and the petitioner comes within the purview of said cut-off marks list. Counsel submits that the information was communicated to the petitioner for the purpose of counseling which was held from 20.12.2021 to 24.12.2021. He further submits that the petitioner appeared in the counseling and submitted all the required certificates including experience certificate, but the respondent authorities have not added his experience marks in the column. In this regard, petitioner has submitted his representation, but the authorities have not added the experience marks of the petitioner for the post of Fisheries Development Officer. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Counsel further submits that by the letter dated 26.10.2022 issued by the Special Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna, it is crystal clear that honorarium paid to the Kisan Salahkar was duly sanctioned and their services be treated as contractual service. A letter in this regard has also been issued by the Additional Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar vide Letter No. 3@,eŒ&45@2022 lk0Ák0 12897 dated 28.07.2022 to all the Departments/ all Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary/ Secretary to consider five marks per year experience of the contract level worker in the vacancy of the post of permanent employee.
Learned counsel appearing for the B.T.S.C., on the other hand, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition. He submits that the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 has been filed in which stand has been taken that the Department of Animal and Fish Resources, Govt. of Bihar has passed the Bihar Animal and Fish Resources (Fish) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2007’) dated 23.08.2007 in the light of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and according to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2007 which talks about the Procedure of the Recruitment, advertisement was published. Counsel further submits that in the said advertisement particularly its clause-3(ii) which clearly indicates that in view of rule 2 of the 2020 amended rules regarding the weightage of work experience of five marks for each completed years for contract service upto maximum of 25 marks for five years of work experience would be granted to the candidates. Counsel submits that the work experience as claimed by the petitioner are not in terms/consonance with the specific clause-3(ii) of the advertisement as he has worked on the post of Kisan Salahkar. It has been categorically submitted that the post of Kisan Salahkar is not a contractual post and they also not being paid monthly remuneration. It is submitted that the commission has not awarded this petitioner weightage point in respect of his work experience claimed by him because petitioner’s claimed work experience is not covering the specific clause-3(ii) of the advertisement. Since, petitioner’s merit point is less than the last cut-off marks in pursuance of the marks of the candidates who have been lastly selected by the commission in the category of petitioner. It has been further submitted that the commission has assessed the derived percentage point as 50.625 and he has got 0 marks with regard to the work experience, therefore, his total combined point has been assessed as 50.625, whereas, under the Backward Class (BC) category, the last selected candidate has got 55.0312 marks. Counsel submits that the petitioner’s merit point is 50.625 which is less than the last selected candidate under the BC category (55.0312). As such, the commission has not recommended the name of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the B.T.S.C. has taken further stand that the weightage point in respect of work experience could only be awarded to any candidate who comes under the category of Resolution of the State Government issued by the General Administrative Department vide Memo No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has responded that the petitioner is well covered, as Kisan Salahkar are contractual appointee in the light of Resolution issued by the General Administrative Department contained in Memo No. 2401 dated 18.07.2007 and also fulfills the criteria according to clause-5 of the Resolution dated 22.01.2021 issued by the General Administrative Department.
In this regard, this Court vide order dated 13.07.2026 has specifically directed to the petitioner to file the concerned documents by which he shall show that the petitioner/Kisan Salahkar used to be appointed in the light of said Resolution dated 18.07.2007 and he fulfills the criteria according to clause-5 of the Resolution dated 22.01.2021. It was further directed that if the petitioner does not produce any such document on the next appointed date then, this Court shall presume that the petitioner has no case and no further adjournment shall be granted in this case.
Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appointment of petitioner is contractual in nature and in this regard, he has annexed appointment letter as well as the Kisan Salahkar Chayan Margdarshika. But, by the said margdarshika, it is not clear that appointment of petitioner has been made in the light of the Circulars issued by the General Administrative Department dated 18.07.2007 & 22.01.2021.
With a view to decide this issue, it is necessary to quote the relevant clause-3(ii) of the Advertisement No. 03/2021 (annexed as Annexure-6) which is reproduced here-in-under:-
“मतसय ननदेशालय नबहार सरकार एवं अधीनसथ कायारलयो अथवा नबहार सरकार के अनतररत अनय नवभारो अथवा राजय सरकार से संबंनधत कायारलयो मे कृनष एवं मतसय Á{ks«k के कायर हेतु अनुबंध के आधार पर ननयुकत कमीर को कायर अनुभव हेतु (ÁfrOk"kZ के नलए 5 अंक, अनधकतम 25 अंक)”
It is also necessary to quote the relevant clause-4 & 5 of the Resolution of the State Government issued by the General Administrative Department contained in Memo No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021 (annexed as Annexure-R2/B) which are reproduced here-in-under:-
“….(4) ननयनमत ननयुनकत मे अनधमानता-fUk;fer ननयुनकत नकये जाने के Øe मे lafOknk ननयोनजत कनमरयो को ननयुनकत की ÁfØ;k मे ननमनांनकत अनधमानता (weightage) दी जायेरी-
(i)संनवदा के आधार पर पूवर मे अभयथीर दारा ÁfrOk‘kZ की रयी संतोषजनक lsOkk के नलए अनधकतम पाँच अंक ÁfrOk‘kZ की दर से अनधकतम 25 अंको की vf/kekurk ¼ नकसी वषर के अंश के नलए कायरनदवसो की संखया मे 5 से रुणा करने के i”pkr~ 365 से भार देकर ÁkIr अनुपानतक अंक जोडा जायेरा½ दी जायेरी।
(ii)संनवदा ननयोजन के फलसवरप नकये रये कायर अवनध के समतुलय vOkf/k की छूट अनधकतम mez सीमा मे दी जायेरी। नकसी dk;Zjr Ok’kZ ds va“k d¨ �h blesa शानमल नकया जायेरा।
(iii)सभी नवभार दारा उनके fu;a«k.kk/khu सेवा/संवरर ननयमावली मे अनधमानता से संबंनधत उपयुरकत उप-कंनडका (i) एवं (ii) के अनुरप संशोधन कर नलया जायेरा। परनतु (I) उकत वनणरत mez सीमा मे f“kfFkYkhdj.k एवं dk;Z अनुभव के vk/kkj पर ननयुनकत मे अनधमानता का लाभ नसफर उसी पद पर ननयनमत ननयुनकत के le; नदया जायेरा, नजस पद पर संनवदा ननयोजन के तहत कायर नकया रया हो। (II) जहाँ तक अनुभव के आधार पर अनधमानता का Á“u है, अनधमानता देते समय अनधकृत नवननयामक संसथाओं अथवा नवशवनवदालय अनुदान आयोर, एवं अनखल भारतीय तकनीकी नशका पनरषद आनद दारा ननधारनरत माररदशरन को धयान मे रखना आवशयक है। दूसरे शबदो मे नजन मामलो मे इन अनधकृत नवननयामक संसथाओं के दारा नदये रये माररदशरन लारू है उनमे ननयुनकत dh योगयता एवं अनधमानता आनद माररदशरन के अनुरप ही होरी।
(III)परनतु यह भी नक mez सीमा मे नशनथलीकरण का लाभ वैसे मामलो मे नहीं नदया जा सकेरा, जहाँ कानून/ननयुनकत ननयमावली के तहत उसकी अनुमनत न हो। उदाहरण के नलए पुनलस की ननयुनकत अथवा कई अनय मामलो मे mez सीमा मे नशनथलीकरण की अनुमनत कानून/ननयुनकत ननयमावली नहीं देता है। अतः ऐसे मामलो मे mez सीमा मे नशनथलीकरण का लाभ देय नहीं होरा।
…..(5) उपयुरकत सुनवधाएँ केवल नवनधवत् ननयोनजत संनवदा कनमरयो को अनुमानय होरी। ये सुनवधाएँ अवैध ननयुनकतयो, दैननक वेतनभोरी कनमरयो एवं वाहय सेवा çnkRkk से सेवा çkIr कनमरयो के संबंध मे लारू नहीं होरी। दूसरे शबदो मे नजन कनमरयो की ननयुनकत सामानय ç“kklUk नवभार के संकलप जापांक- 2401 नदनांक 18.07.2007 (समय-समय पर यथासंशोनधत) मे ननधारनरत ÁfØ;k के अनुसरण मे की रई है, केवल उनहीं संनवदा कनमरयो के संदभर मे उपयुरकत सुनवधाएँ अनुमानय होरी।
केवल वे ही ननयोजन वैध संनवदा ननयोजन है नजनके संबंध मे-
(1)पद सवीकृत हो,
(2)ननयुकत कमीर पद की अहरता रखता हो,
(3)पद नवजानपत नकया रया हो,
(4)ननयुनकत हेतु चयन/LØhfUkax सनमनत का रठन नकया रया हो एवं चयन ÁfØ;k अपनायी रयी हो,
(5)ननयुनकत सकम çkf/kdkj दारा की रई हो,
(6)आरकण के नसदांत का अनुपालन नकया रया हो।
नजन संनवदा ननयोजन के संदभर मे उपयुरकत “kr¨Za का अनुपालन नहीं नकया रया है, os अवैध fu;qfDr;k¡ कहलायेरी।”
Since, the petitioner has failed to produce before this Court that appointment of Kisan Salahkar has been made in the light of two Resolutions of the General Administrative Department i.e. Resolution contained in Memo No. 2401 dated 18.07.2007 and the Resolution contained in Memo No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the benefit of weightage marks cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.