Patna High Court
Kundan MishraversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to experience weightage as he did not hold any of the positions specified by the Staff Selection Commission’s resolution, and thus the commission’s decision was lawful.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Mishra, who had been working as a Kisan Salahkar, applied for the post of Agriculture Coordinator advertised by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. He submitted all required documents but was not included in the final list of selected candidates. The petitioner claimed that the commission erred by not giving weightage to his five years of experience, seeking appointment to the post. The commission argued that, per its resolution dated 27 July 2016, weightage for experience was limited to candidates who had served as Assistant Technical Manager, Block Technical Manager, Agriculture Coordinator on contract, or as subject‑matter specialists, categories in which the petitioner did not fall. The court examined the advertisement clause allowing up to 30 marks for experience and the commission’s resolution, finding that the petitioner’s role as Kisan Salahkar did not qualify for such weightage. Consequently, the court held there was no illegality in the commission’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive experience weightage for the Agriculture Coordinator post under the Staff Selection Commission’s advertisement and resolution
- Whether the denial of such weightage to the petitioner amounted to an illegal act warranting relief
Subjects
- Staff Selection Commission
- experience weightage
- Agriculture Coordinator
- public service recruitment
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no.1915 of 2017
======================================================
Kundan Mishra Son of Hareram Mishra Resident of Village - Bhadauni, P.O.
and P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Bihar Agriculture Management and Training Institute,
Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
5. The District Agriculture Officer, Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nilotpal Sharma, AC to GP 21
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 19.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
for the following reliefs:
“(i) To direct the Respondents to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Agriculture Coordinator
in pursuance of the Memo no. 423/A dated
17.02.2016 issued by the Staff Selection
Commission, State of Bihar;
(ii) To direct the Respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner on the same footing as that
of the temporary Agriculture Coordinator;
(iii) To direct the Respondents to give weightage
Patna High Court CWJC no.1915 of 2017(5) dt.19.01.2026
2/5
to the five experience of the petitioner in his
appointment.
(iv) To grant any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioners are found to be entitled under the
facts and circumstances of case.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working
as a Kisan Salahkar in Jhunathi Panchayat of Nawada Block in
the district of Nawada on 29.1.2011 on the basis of temporary
honorarium and has been working on the said post continuously.
At this time, on the respondents Staff Selection Commission
coming out an advertisement for selection of Agriculture
Coordinator, the petitioner applied for the said post. He was
called for verification of certificate and counseling, wherein he
appeared with all the relevant documents, however, he was
surprised not to find his name in the final list of selected
candidates published by the Staff Selection Commission. Hence
the instant writ application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was working as a Kisan Salahkar under the
District Agriculture Officer, Nawada and a certificate to that
effect dated 20.5.2015 has been brought on record as Annexure-
3 to the writ application. As such, it is submitted that the
respondents committed an error in not giving weightage of the
work done by the petitioner. The same be given and the
Patna High Court CWJC no.1915 of 2017(5) dt.19.01.2026
3/5
petitioner be appointed as Agriculture Coordinator.
5. The application is opposed by learned counsel for
the Staff Selection Commission. It is submitted that as per
Clause-7 of the advertisement (Annexure- 4), while the marks
on the basis of having obtained a graduate degree was 70, a
weightage of a maximum of 30 marks was to be given for work
experience. It is further submitted that the Members of the Staff
Selection Commission in its meeting dated 27.7.2016 having
dealt with the issue, came to the conclusion that the weightage
for the work done is to be given only to those applicants who
had worked as Assistant Technical Manager, Block Technical
Manager, Agriculture Coordinator on contract basis and subject
matter specialists as held in the resolution dated 27.7.2016 in the
448th meeting of the Staff Selection Commission. It is thus
submitted that the petitioner was rightly not given any
weightage for the work done by him as a Kisan Salahkar. There
is no merit in the instant writ application and the same be
dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
7. The relevant facts in brief is that the petitioner, who
was working as a Kisan Salahkar, have applied against
Patna High Court CWJC no.1915 of 2017(5) dt.19.01.2026
4/5
advertisement dated 17.2.2016 of the Staff Selection
Commission for appointment on the post of Agriculture
Coordinator, the petitioner received a letter asking him to come
for counseling along with all relevant documents and
certificates.
8. As per the petitioner's case, though he produced all
the relevant documents /certificates, he was surprised not to find
his name in the final list published of the selected candidates.
9. While the petitioner claims that he was wrongly not
given weightage for the work done by him, it is the case of the
respondents Staff Selection Commission that the weightage was
rightly not given to the petitioner in view of the resolution of the
Staff Selection Commission referred to herein above
10. As per the Clause 7 of the advertisement, it
transpires that weightage upto a maximum 30 marks was to be
given for the work experience. As to what work experience
would count for giving of weightage upto 30 marks came to be
decided in the 448th meeting of the Staff Selection Commission
held on 27.7.2016 wherein it was decided that the weightage
would be given to the Assistant Technical Manager, Block
Technical Manager, Agriculture Coordinator working on
contract basis and subject matter specialists.
Patna High Court CWJC no.1915 of 2017(5) dt.19.01.2026
5/5
11. On perusal of the contents of the writ petition and
especially Annexure- 3 thereof which is the certificate produced
by the petitioner for the work done by him as Kisan Salahkar,
there remains no doubt that the petitioner had not worked in any
of the four capacities which was decided in the meeting held on
27.7.2016 of the Staff Selection Commission of the people who
would be entitled for the weightage up to the 30 marks.
12. In view of the above, the Court finds no illegality
in the action of the respondents in not giving any weightage for
the work done by the petitioner as a Kisan Salahkar.
13. The Court finds no merit in the instant writ
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
U
Checking your session…