@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application has been filed by the Petitioner since his claim for appointment to the post of peon under Madhubani collectorate came to be rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was not class eighth pass when the appointment was being considered in the year 2004.
3. The reasoning for rejection of the claim of the Petitioner is being challenged in the present writ application by the Petitioner both on facts as well as on law. First contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that even if the appointment is being made in the year 2004, the appointment was being made from a panel prepared in the year 1994. The reason for appointment being made from the panel of 1994 was based on the order passed by the High Court in MJC No. 148 of 2004. The stand of the Petitioner is that the relevant circular invoked at the relevant time will be the yard stick for consideration of the minimum qualification for appointment to the post. Even though the appointment was being made in the year 2004 it has to co-relate to the cause of action for such appointment which arose in the year 1994 when the panel was prepared. Many other persons junior to Petitioner in the said panel had came to be appointed but the Petitioner''s claim was rejected on the ground that he was not eighth pass.
4. Submission of learned Counsel is that at the relevant time i.e. 1994 or before 1997, when the new circular came into force the eligibility for appointment on Class-IV post was that the person must possess reading and writing capability and he must have ability to ride a cycle. These were the two primary considerations. Prior to 25th April, 1997 circular which has been brought on record as Annexure-A, the minimum qualification of eighth pass was not there either in 1993 circular or 1980 circular. Since the appointment was going to be made from the list of candidates who were working as daily wagers and that too from the panel of 1994 the insistence of the Respondents to apply 1997 circular seems to be misplaced.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of Bivash Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 787 wherein it has held that it is the circular at the relevant time when the process of appointment was initiated has to be taken into consideration and not the subsequent event or change in the said circular.
6. Learned Counsel for the State takes a stand that since the appointment was being made in the year 2004 this circular which was in operation at the relevant time had been taken into consideration and minimum qualification laid down therein is eighth pass. The Respondents have done no wrong in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. Having minimum basic qualification as laid down by the State cannot be faulted for many a reasons.
7. Contention of the State would have merited consideration provided the appointment was being made on the basis of the panel prepared in 2004. Admitted position is that the panel was already prepared in the year 1994 and because of the pendency of the litigation before the High Court the appointment only came to be made in 2004. If that is the position on the ground, then disqualifying the Petitioner on the ground that in the year 2004 another circular had come to occupy the space which has laid down minimum qualification as eighth pass seems to be unreasonable and misplaced, more so in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Bivash Kumar referred to above.
8. This writ application is allowed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment provided the vacancy still exists within a reasonable time frame.
