Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The intervenors-respondents are the appellants. They filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.5.2000 passed in CWJC No. 4224 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has held that the Writ petitioners-respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite qualification for the post of District Fishery Officer or Fisheries Extension Officer and accordingly, directed to publish his result on the basis of interview held in pursuance of an interim order of this Court. Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ application on 4.5.1999 for issuance of an appropriate Writ to the respondent-State to include the Degree of M.Sc. (Fisheries Management) (hereinafter referred to as the FM) granted by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education (hereinafter referred to as the CIFE) as one of the requisite qualifications for the post of District Fishery Officer or Fisheries Extension Officer in the State of Bihar and for a further direction to the State and the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) to consider him as an eligible candidate for the said post and issue him interview letter pursuant to his application against advertisement No. 85 of 1998 published in the local daily newspaper on 21.6.1998 by the Commission.

2. The facts which are not in. dispute are that the Governor of Bihar has framed rules known as Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fisheries) Service Recruitment Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules) which was published in the Bihar Gazette on 14.1.1993. In terms of the said Recruitment Rules, the requisite educational and other qualifications for the post of District Fishery Officer/Fisheries Extension Officer are as follows.

B.Sc. (Zoology) with certificate of two years Diploma in Fisheries Science course from CIFE, Bombay or Bachelor of Fisheries Science from any recognised University. (B.F.Sc.)

3. In 1993, the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department sent requisition to the Commission for filling up 33 posts of the Fisheries Extension Officer by direct recruitment. Thereafter, the Commission issued an advertisement prescribing the qualifications as prescribed in the rules and made selection. The said selection of the candidates was challenged before this Court in a batch of cases including CWJC No. 7198 of 1994 primarily on the ground that the appointment on the basis of interview only which was a mode prescribed in the said Rule, was arbitrary. One of the points raised in the said Writ applications was also that the two candidates having no requisite qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules, were selected and their appointment was impermissible in law. This Court dismissed the Writ applications and the said Judgment is reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 789 Nutan and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. It upheld the entire selection process and upheld the appointment of two persons who have Degree of M.Sc. in Inland Fisheries Administration and Management (hereinafter referred to as the IFAM) from CIFE primarily on the ground that the State Government has treated the aforesaid qualification as equivalent to the aforesaid qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules.

4. In the year 1998, the State Government made requisition to the Commission for filling up 15 posts of Fisheries Extension Officer. 13 posts were reserved and two posts were available to the general candidates. The Commission thereafter issued an advertisement on.21.6.1998 being Advertisement No. 85 of 1998 in the local daily newspaper for filling the aforesaid posts and prescribed the following qualification.

B.Sc. (Zoology) with two years Diploma Course in Fisheries Science or M.Sc. in IFAM from CIFE or Bachelor in Fisheries Science Degree from any recognised University.

It is to be stated here that the qualification of M.Sc. in IFAM which was treated as equivalent to two years Diploma course in Fishery Science was included in the advertisement by