SHREENIDHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has prayed for quashing the combined merit list (revised) as contained in Memo No. 40321 dated 29.12.2017 issued by the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna as well as for quashing of the order dated 4.8.2017 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of 30 marks for work experience of more than 3 years has been rejected stating that the petitioner has only completed 2 years, 10 months and 29 days. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to publish a fresh revised merit list after rectifying the mistake in calculation of the work experience and to include the name of the petitioner in the final revised merit list.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a graduate in agriculture and is working as agriculture Coordinator in the Chiraiya Block, East Champaran on contract basis. The Government of Bihar framed recruitment and Service condition for appointment to the post of Agriculture Coordinator in the Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna and issued the Agriculture Coordinator cadre (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2014 (herein after referred to as "the Rules, 2014"). Thereafter, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement dated 29.4.2015 for appointment to the post of Agriculture Coordinator in the department of Agriculture, Bihar and last date for filing the online application was 4.6.2015. The petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Agriculture Coordinator. Subsequently, the last date for filing online application as well as for counting of the work experience was extended to 14.6.2015. The petitioner was called for counseling on 16.3.2016, whereupon the petitioner had appeared for counseling on 16.3.2016 along with all the requisite original documents. In the meantime, the Commission in its meeting dated 27.7.2016 had decided to count the work experience of a candidate up to 14.6.2015. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, vide memo dated 5.8.2016 had published a merit list in which the name of the petitioner had also figured. As directed, the petitioner had appeared on 27.9.2016 for verification of the document. The Commission, vide letter dated 6.12.2016, had recommended the name of the successful candidates and vide letter dated 24.1.2017 had published the district wise merit list of the candidates as recommended by the Commission. Subsequently, the Commission vide Memo dated 22.5.2017 had published the rectified list. The petitioner had then filed online objection, asserting that he is entitled for being granted 30 marks under the heading "works experience" and not 20 marks inasmuch as he has completed more than 3 years of service. The petitioner has also pointed out that although the experience certificate/ letters had been issued on 7.5.2015, but the last date for counting the experience has been extended up to 14.6.2016. However, the online objection of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.8.2017 thereafter, the Commission had published the revised combined merit list dated 29.12.2017 but the name of the petitioner does not figure in the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the advertisement issued by the Commission, under Clause-7 provides that the work experience of a candidate shall be counted up to the last date for receiving of the application i.e. 4.6.2015, which was extended up to 14.6.2015 in the meeting of the Commission held on 27.7.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has submitted a certificate dated 7.5.2015 issued by the District Agriculture Officer, East Champaran, Motihari which certifies that the petitioner had worked as specialist District Agriculture Officer, Banka from 9.11.2011 to 15.5.2013 and is working as District Agricultural Officer, Motihari from 11.12.2013. Thus, the petitioner has worked for a period of one year, 6 months and 7 days on the post of specialist District Agriculture Officer, Banka and for a period of one year, 6 months and 5 days on the post of District Agriculture Officer, Motihari, taking into account the working of the petitioner up to 14.6.2015, which is the cut off date in the present case, hence the total work experience of the petitioner works out to 3 years and 12 days, thus the petitioner ought to have been granted 30 marks as per Clause-7 of the advertisement, but the Commission has wrongly calculated the work experience of the petitioner as two years 11 months and 2 days and he has wrongly been given 20 marks.