ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by non-selection in the recruitment process initiated by the Respondent-Board under its notification dated 6.10.2010 Annexure-K, petitioners also challenge the vires of the rules regarding the educational qualification requirement prescribed under Govt. order No: FEE 54 EPC 2009 dated 5.5.2010 Annexue-J and the consequential order issued by the Respondent-Board on 12.5.2010 in No:KSPCB/ADMN/C&R AMEND/2010-2011/417 Annexure- A1.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioners are working as scientific assistants on contract basis and have pursued bachelor's degree in science with Biochemistry, botany and microbiology and have also completed their masters in environmental science. The petitioners are questioning the recruitment notification vide Annexure-J wherein the qualification required for eligibility for a scientific assistant is prescribed as a degree in science with chemistry as one of the optional. The petitioners contend that they have graduated in science but have not studied chemistry as optional. The petitioners relying on Rule 10 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 contend that the post of government analyst and scientific assistant in the respondent board is the same and prescribing different qualifications for a government analyst and scientific assistant is ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections and has contended that the present petitioners along with two others had filed WP Nos. 36676 - 36679/2010 and this Court had not granted any permission to withdraw the petitions but with a vague averment made by the petitioners in their memo dated 12. 7. 2013 had sought liberty to file fresh writ petition. Though the said memo was abandoned, the petitioners withdrew the petition without express permission and therefore the petitioners are barred under Order 23 Rule 1(14) and Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and therefore petitions are liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Further respondent No. 2 would also contend that the petitioners being contract employees cannot dictate the terms of recruitment, petitioners have not pursued a degree in science with chemistry as an optional subject and having participated in the recruitment process cannot at a later stage challenge the said recruitment.

4. Heard Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

5. The short point that falls for consideration before this Court is;

“Whether petitioners, who have completed a science degree with biochemistry as an optional, can contest a recruitment notification that specifies a degree in science with chemistry as an optional for the post of scientific assistant.”

6. This Court has previously in WP No.

13173/2013, wherein the petitioner who pursued a science degree with Biochemistry was not considered for the position of scientific assistant. Despite having a master's degree in chemistry, the petitioner's failure to mention it in the application led to rejection solely because the bachelor's degree was in science with Biochemistry. Since the selection process was already completed, the court declined to intervene. The said order reads as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks direction to the respondents to consider her application/candidature for the post of Scientific Assistant. The prescribed qualification for the said post, as mentioned in the Notification dated 12.5.10, was a Degree in Science with "Chemistry" as one of the optionals. The petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in "Bio- Chemistry" and a masters degree in Science with Chemisty. While applying in response to the Notification, she mentioned about her bachelors degree in Science with Bio-Chemistry. The petitioner did not make any reference whatsoever to her Masters Degree in Science with Chemistry. Her application was therefore considered a