1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State in respect of both the writ petitions which have been heard together on account of both being identical in respect of relevant facts as well as the reliefs claimed.

2. The rules in question in these writ petitions are titled- “Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik awam Uchhttar Madhyamik Shiksha (Niyojan awam Seva Sharten) Niyamawali, 2006 and Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik awam Uchhttar Madhyamik Shikskha (Niyojan awam Seva Sharten) Niyamawali, 2006” (hereinafter referred to as “the Recruitment Rules of 2006”). In the writ petitions a challenge has been made to those provisions in Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules which prescribe minimum eligibility for appointment on the post of teacher as well as on the post of Librarian in the concerned Schools but since the petitioners have applied only for the post of Librarian, hence this Court is confining the issue of validity of only those provisions of the Rules which lay down eligibility criteria for the post of Librarian.

3. Before dealing with the issue of vires of the relevant rules and the specific submissions advanced by the parties, the relevant facts may be noticed in brief. The petitioners claim that they have obtained degree of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, deoghar, which is recognized by the State of Bihar, to be a degree equivalent to graduation for the purposes of admission to higher courses in the various Universities of Bihar as well as for the purposes of recruitment to various services under the State of Bihar. The details of academic records of the petitioners are available and are not disputed. Petitioner of CWJC No. 5129 of 2009 has claimed that after obtaining degree of Sahityalankar he took admission in the course of Master of Arts (History) and passed the same from Nalanda Open University. Thereafter he took admission for the course of Bachelor of Library and Information Science in the same University and passed in the year 2007 in 2nd Division. Thereafter he passed Master of Librarian in Information Science in the year 2008 from the same University. Petitioner in other case also claims to have the requisite qualification of Library Science. An advertisement, bearing Notification No. 1337 dated 25.08.2008, was published in the News papers for appointment to the post of Pustakalayadhyaksha (Librarian) and Shikshak (teacher) in different schools under Zila Parishad and Nagar Nikay in the State of Bihar. For easy reference relevant annexures, for the purposes of this judgment, are from CWJC No. 5129 of 2009. The advertisement and the receipts showing applications received by the petitioners are Annexure-3 series.

4. In the advertisement the minimum qualification/eligible criteria has not been specifically mentioned but a clear reference has been made to the recruitment Rules, 2006. According to the writ petitioners, on subsequent query they came to know that the rules contain two conditions for the post of librarian. As per Rule 4(ka)(vii) - the candidate must have passed graduation examination with minimum 45% marks from any recognized University and (ii) he must have Bachelor degree in Library Science from a University recognized by Education Department of State Government. Petitioners have the second qualification, i.e, the graduation degree in Library Science but so far as the first eligibility criteria graduation is concerned, they have a graduation degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar which is not a recognized “University” although the degree itself is recognized by the State of Bihar for different purposes as equivalent to a degree of graduation. Because the relevant Rules prescribe that the graduation degree must be from a recognized University without adding that it may also be an equivalent degree recognized by the State of Bihar, the petitioners feel compelled to challenge the relevant provisions of the recruitment Rules.

5. On behalf of petitioners the first submission advanced is that for purposes of appointment to the post of Librarian in the Schools concerned the classification between the graduates from the recognized University and those having equivalent recognized graduate degree is unreasonable and there was no reason or nexus for such classifications with the object of recruitment to the post of Librarian which is to select the best person having specialized qualification of Library Science from a University recognized by the Education Department of State of Bihar. Secondly it was contended that in the regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of statutory powers under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Central Act 73 of 1993), the qualification for recruitment of teachers in an educational institution contains the criterion of being a graduate with bachelor of Education (B.Ed) along with provision for equivalent degrees. The point canvassed is that education being a subject in the concurrent list (Entry 45 in list 3), such rules by the State Government cannot be treated to be valid law when they are in conflict with the Central legislation covering the field in the light of provisions contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Lastly it was contended that the executive authorities of the State of Bihar have framed the rules containing arbitrary qualification and such arbitrariness is writ large in view of undisputed facts showing that a person having a degree of Sahityalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar can pursue the Post-graduate courses and other higher courses in the University of Bihar and can also sit in the competitive examination conducted by the State of Bihar for various services in the State of Bihar but he cannot be eligible for the post of Librarian. Instances were cited that the degree of graduation which the petitioners have, entitles them for all other services and many professional courses like Law degree.

6. Coming to the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to challenge the classification between the University graduates and other equivalent graduates as arbitrary per se and further it was contended that by a subsequent amendment dated 26.02.2009 the relevant rule, i.e Rule 4(ka)(vii) has been amended so as to confer eligibility on those who hold equivalent degree of Aalim granted by Bihar Madarsa Shiksha Board and equivalent degree of Shastri granted by Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. It was submitted that since the degree of Sahityalankar by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is already recognized by the State of Bihar for all other purposes as equivalent to graduation degree, not including the same among the two equivalent degrees in the amendment notification of the Rules dated 26.02.2009 is also an arbitrary exercise of power by the State as it amounts to treating two equals as unequals, which is impermissible in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. On behalf of the State, learned AAG, submitted that so far as the attack on the relevant rules on ground of Article 254 of the Constitution of India is concerned, for that there should have been necessary pleadings in the writ petitions but it is not there. So far as issue of arbitrariness in classification is concerned, it was submitted that for other services under the State proficiency in subjects at the level of graduation may not be so necessary as in case of service in the schools. When requested to elaborate the aforesaid submission, further elaboration related only to duties and functions of the teacher and nothing could be pointed out to distinguish the service of a Librarian from any other service under the State.

8. So far as the issue of discrimination vis-à-vis degree holders of Aalim and Shastri granted by Bihar Madarsa Shiksha Board and Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University are concerned, an attempt was made to explain that the amendments are only with the purpose to enable such degree holders to be eligible for being appointed as teachers in the subject concerned, i.e, in Urdu and Sanskrit only. But this submission is not worth consideration when it is being introduced by way of amendment in respect of eligibility criteria for the post of Librarian. Even for the post of teacher, the amendment in question may have wider effect than conferring the eligibility only for the subject in question but that issue is not required to be considered in these writ petitions.

9. On a proper consideration of all the relevant facts, we feel that there is no need to examine the issue whether pleadings are required to raise a question of law on the basis of Article 254 of the Constitution of India to assail the validity of the rules in question. On the issue of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India relating to arbitrary qualification and discrimination, we are satisfied that the relevant provisions in Rule 4(ka)(vii) have become vulnerable to being declared ultra vires unless, by interpretation we read into those provisions that equivalent graduation degree recognized by the State of Bihar shall also be part of the relevant rules together with provision relating to graduation degree from recognized University.

10. There are large number of legal authorities for the proposition that the courts should attempt to save the vires of provisions if it is possible by reading down the provision or by appropriate interpretation. We are of the view that considering the nature of the rules which can be changed by executive notification at any time, the interest of all will be best served by interpreting relevant rules so that condition no. 1 of eligibility requiring graduate degree from a recognized University shall also include equivalent degree from any institution recognized by the State of Bihar.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding we have to now consider what relief should be given to the petitioners in respect of on-going selection process. There is no dispute that no appointment letters have been issued to the successful candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have already applied pursuant to the advertisement. It does appear from the submissions made at the Bar that process of selection has advanced considerably since the advertisement published in the Month of August, 2008. At this stage it may not be in the interest of State and the public to delay the recruitment process unnecessarily by extending reliefs to those who did not move this Court by asking the authorities to issue fresh advertisement. Hence, we direct the respondents not to issue appointment letters to the candidates for the post of Librarian even if they have been selected. The selection process for this post will be redone after taking into consideration fairly and in accordance with the guidelines the applications of both the petitioners who have already applied. If on such fair consideration the petitioners also enter into the zone of the selected candidates then they will also be entitled to be appointed along with other such candidates. These directions will be applicable only for those districts for which the petitioners have applied.

12. In order to avoid further delay we direct the respondents to complete the process of selection and appointment as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

13. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.