JUDGMENT Dr. J. N. Dubey, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.1995 of the respondent no. 1, the State of Bihar, appointing respondent no. 4, Hari Sharan Srivastava as Director, Dairy Development. 2. It appears that the petitioner, Amiya Chakravarty, was appointed as Dairy Overseer Class III on 20.8.1959 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Supervisor Class III on 9.5.1962. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Dairy Extension Assistant on 18.10.1965. He was sent on deputation as Assistant Manager Class I in the Bihar State Dairy Corporation (for short 'the Corporation)' in the year 1975. He returned to his parent department in 1979 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Extension officer in Bihar Animal Husbandry Service (for short the BAH Service') Class II on 14.1.1981. He was posted as Deputy Director in the BAH Service Class I with effect from 29.9.1988 in his own pay scale. On 25.4.1989, he was recommended by Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotion with effect from 1.5.1987. On the other hand, the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Junior Branch on 27.11.1964 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Senior Branch on 28.2.1971. He was sent on deputation to the Corporation on 8.2.1975. He resigned from the post of Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Senior Branch on 1.8.1975 and became regular employee of the Corporation. The Corporation was liquidated on 10.2.1984 and the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Dairy Engineer in the BAH Service Class I on 30.10.1986 on adhoc basis on 14.1.1988, on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, he was appointed on the said post on regular basis on 1.12.1990, he was given the additional charge of the post of Regional Joint Director on 1.11.1992, the Bihar Public Service Commission recommended him for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition. On 12.7.1995, the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Director, Dairy Development and, therefore, the petitioner got the writ petition amended to incorporate the relief for quashing his appointment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the respondent no. On 12.7.1995, the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Director, Dairy Development and, therefore, the petitioner got the writ petition amended to incorporate the relief for quashing his appointment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer in the BAH Service Class I was illegal. According to him, services of the employees of the BAH Service Class I were governed by the Bihar and Orissa Veterinary Service Class I Recruitment Rules, 1935 (for short 'the Recruitment Rules'), which provided only two sources of recruitment in the service viz. by promotion from the BAH Service Class II and direct recruitment. There was no provision for absorbing an outsider in the BAH Service Class I and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 could not be legally appointed on the post of Dairy Engineer after liquidation of the Corporation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Recruitment Rules are not applicable to the BAH Services Class I, therefore, the respondent no. 1 was perfectly justified in appointing the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer in pursuance of its policy decision dated 10.2.1984. He further contended that even assuming that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer was not strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, it could not be challenged by the petitioner after a lapse of 8 years. 5. In Dr. Ram Raj Ram -versus- the State of Bihar and others, 1996 (9) SCC 178 , the Supreme Court has held that the services of Department of Animal Husbandry in the State are still governed by the Recruitment Rules. Since there is no provision for absorption of an outsider in the BAH Service Class I, the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer was illegal but it was neither malafide nor against the public interest. The policy decision dated 10.2.1984 appears to have been taken in the public interest in order to utilise the services of experienced officers of the Corporation. No doubt, the officers of the Corporation were benefited in the process but it cannot be said that the respondent no. The policy decision dated 10.2.1984 appears to have been taken in the public interest in order to utilise the services of experienced officers of the Corporation. No doubt, the officers of the Corporation were benefited in the process but it cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 took this policy decision in order to help any individual or group of individuals against public interest. This being so, it cannot be claimed that the action of the respondent no. 1 in appointing the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer on liquidation of the Corporation was either malafide or against the public interest. 6. In my opinion, it will not be appropriate to disturb the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer after long 8 years at the instance of the petitioner, who has all along been much junior to him, both in the BAH Service as well as the Corporation. The petitioner, net having challenged the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer for long 8 years, cannot be legally permitted to challenge the same in these collateral proceedings. In State of U.P. -versus- Rafiquiddin and others, AIR 1988 SC 162 , the Supreme Court even after holding that the appointment of the Judicial officers were made in violation of provisions of U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, refused to set aside the same on the ground that 12 years period had lapsed since their appointment. In this view of the matter, inspite of the fact that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer was not made strictly in accordance with Rules, I am not inclined to set it aside in these collateral proceedings after such a long time. 7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Directorate of Dairy Development is a separate cadre and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 could not be legally appointed on the post of Director, Dairy Development. According to him, the respondent no. 4, not being member of that cadre, could not be appointed on the post of Director, Dairy Development. 4 could not be legally appointed on the post of Director, Dairy Development. According to him, the respondent no. 4, not being member of that cadre, could not be appointed on the post of Director, Dairy Development. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that although it is true that a separate Directorate of Dairy Development was created by the State Government on 1.4.1981, but no separate cadre for the BAH Service Class I and II was created. 8. The record reveals that the Government created a separate Directorate for Dairy Development on 1.4.1981 without creating a separate cadre. However, a separate cadre for Class III and IV employees of the Directorate of Dairy Development was created on 20-12-1981 and for class I and II employees on 25-9-1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the gradation list dt. 13-5-1991 (Annexure 20) and recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 27.12.1991 (Annexure 10) to show that the Directorate of Dairy Development was a separate cadre but in view of the notification dated 20-12-1981 and 25-9-1996, it is of no legal consequence. As stated above, the State Government created a separate cadre for Class III and IV employees for the Directorate of Dairy Development on 20.12.1981 and for Class I and II on 25.9.1996, which shows that so far Class I and II employees of the Directorate of Dairy Development is concerned, the cadre remained joint till 25.9.1996. Moreover, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in M.G. Sharan and others versus the State of Bihar and others, AIR 1970 Pat. 25 , a cadre has to be expressly created as it is of vital importance for conferring fundamental rights upon the employees and creation of a separate cadre cannot be assumed from the mere creation of a new department. 9. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of Dairy Engineer to which the petitioner was appointed after liquidation of the Corporation was an ex-cadre post and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 was not eligible for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development. Learned counsel for the respondents have seriously disputed this claim of the petitioner. According to them, Dairy Engineer was a cadre post in the BAH Service Class I and not an ex cadre post as claimed by the petitioner. 4 was not eligible for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development. Learned counsel for the respondents have seriously disputed this claim of the petitioner. According to them, Dairy Engineer was a cadre post in the BAH Service Class I and not an ex cadre post as claimed by the petitioner. From the letter dated 13.4.1964 (Annexure 32), I find that initially Dairy Development Section was sanctioned by the Government for the period from 1.3.1964 to 31.3.1966 in the Animal Husbandry Directorate. Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry containing the posts of Joint Director, Dairy Development, Dairy Economist and Dairy Engineer etc. The aforesaid posts were made permanent vide letter dated 26.1.1970 (Annexure 33). Later on, Animal Husbandry Directorate was separated from the Agriculture Department and a new Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery was formed, of which Animal Husbandry Directorate became a part on 1.4.1981, a separate Directorate of Dairy Development was created. While creating the separate Directorate, the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development was converted into Senior Joint Director, Dairy Development. On 20.9.1985 (Annexure 24) the post of Director, Dairy Development and a new post of Joint Director of Dairy Development were created. Thus, it is evident that the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development and Dairy Engineer were initially created and sanctioned in Dairy Development Section of Animal Husbandry Directorate, which later became Animal Husbandly and Fishery Department and in which separate Dairy Development Directorate was established on 1.4.1981 and as such it is established beyond doubt that Dairy Engineer's post is a cadre post of the BAR Service Class I. This also finds support from the extract of the report of the 4th Pay Revision Committee (Annexure F). It is true that the post of Dairy Engineer has been shown as ex-cadre post in Proforma B-I enclosed along with the letter dated 14.1.1988 (Annexure 22) of the Secretary of the Department addressed to the Investigating Officer. 5th Pay Revision Committee, but in view of the fact that this post has not been shown as ex-cadre post either in the letter dated 13.4.1964 (Anmxure 32) or 26.11.1993 (Annexure 33), no reliance can be placed on it, it is now well settled that unless the authority creating the cadre specifically mentions that a particular post is an ex-cadre post, the presumption is that the post is a cadre post. Since while creating the post of Dairy Engineer, the authority concerned did not mention that it was an ex-cadre post, the question of its being treated as ex-cadre post on the basis of Proforma B-I does not arise. 10. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 was not qualified for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development. According to the learned counsel, the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development is degree/diploma in dairy technology and as the respondent no. 4 does not possess that qualification, he could not be legally appointed on that post. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is wrong to say that degree/diploma in dairy technology was an essential qualification for the post of Director, Dairy Development. 11. The claim of the petitioner is that the post of Joint Director. Dairy Development was upgraded to the post of Director, Dairy Development on 28.9.1985 (Annexure 24) and as degree/diploma in dairy technology was essential qualification for the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development, the same should be taken to be the qualification for the post of Director, Dairy Development. As stated above while creating the separate Directorate for Dairy Development on 1.4.1981 the nomenclature of the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development was changed as Senior Joint Director. On 28.5.1985, while upgrading the post of Senior Joint Director, Dairy Development as Director. Dairy Development, the Government once again created the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development and the qualification, which was earlier provided for the post of Joint Director, Dairy Development remained the same. Although to separate qualifications have been provided for the Director, Dairy Development but from the check list submitted as enclosures to the requisition dated 30.9.1991 (Annexure J) as well as 30.10.1993 and annexures submitted along with the requisition sent for appointment of the first Director, Dairy Development, Sri Anandi Prasad Sinha, to the Bihar Public Service Commission, I find that the qualification for the post of Director Dairy Development is degree/diploma in dairy science and not dairy technology as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly the respondent no. 4 possesses diploma in dairy engineering which is one of the faculty of dairy science as certified by the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Dairy Development Institute, Bihar, Patna (Annexure E). 12. Admittedly the respondent no. 4 possesses diploma in dairy engineering which is one of the faculty of dairy science as certified by the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Dairy Development Institute, Bihar, Patna (Annexure E). 12. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 obtained diploma from the National Dairy Research Institute and not from the Sanjay Gandhi Dairy Technology Institute, the certificate of the later is of no help to the petitioner. As stated above no qualification for the post of Director, Dairy Development has been prescribed but from the documents submitted along with recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee to the Bihar Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director, Dairy Development in the past, it is clear that qualification for the appointment on the said post is 'dairy science' and not 'dairy technology. In absence of reference to any particular Institute in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee 'dairy science' has to be given common meaning and therefore, the fact that the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 obtained diploma from the National Dairy Research Institute and not from the Sanjay Gandhi Dairy Technology Institute is of no legal consequence. Thus, it cannot be claimed that the respondent no. 4 was not qualified for being appointed on the post of Director, Dairy Development. 13. In my opinion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.