Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. All these cases relate to appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians in different Hospitals and Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar in pursuance of an advertisement issued in different newspapers on 25th May, 1997. For the said reason, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as I am going to dispose of the writ petitions in terms with the agreement reached between the parties. 3. The Respondents-State from its Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department issued one Resolution No. 316 dated 11th July, 1996, by which, the posts of Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians were merged with the common nomenclature of Laboratory Technician. By the said Resolution, the qualification of I.Sc. with one year of Medical Laboratory Technician (for short M.L.T.) training was laid down for such appointment. Recently, the Respondents-State came out with the impugned advertisement published on 25th May, 1997 in different newspapers calling for applications for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians vacant in one or other Hospitals or Medical Colleges. The qualification laid down therein reads, as follows: The qualification of I.Sc. from recognised University or (10+2 Science) and M.L.T. training from any Institution recognised by the State Government. According to the petitioners, they hold the qualification equivalent to I.Sc. i.e. 10 + 2 Science and also hold M.L.T. certificates. They have obtained such M.L.T. certificates from reputed recognised Institutions like "Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region", an Institution established by Government of India under the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Education. It was alleged that by the impugned advertisement, the clause like M.L.T. certificate from an Institution recognised by the State Government has been laid down, the petitioners have been debarred from consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians, restrictions having put to the candidates who obtained such M.L.T. certificates from other recognised Institutions, situate within and/or outside the State of Bihar, but recognised by other Government, including Government of India. According to the petitioners, such restrictions with respect to M.L.T. certificate limited to State Govt. recognised Institutions is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In this connection, the Counsel relied on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. and Anr. According to the petitioners, such restrictions with respect to M.L.T. certificate limited to State Govt. recognised Institutions is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In this connection, the Counsel relied on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. and Anr. V/s. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Inst. and Ors. reported in -- and a decision of this Court in the case of Chas Bokaro Vikas Samittee and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 138. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents-State, they have made much stress on the basic qualification of petitioners. According to the Respondents +2 course, as passed by the petitioners cannot be treated to-be equivalent to I.Sc. course or 10+2 Science, as granted by the recognised Universities and/or Boards, including C.B.S.E, and/or I.C.S.E. The petitioners have passed Vocational + 2 course with one paper of science, whereas to obtain I.Sc. certificate or 10+2 Science certificate from aforesaid Boards, the persons require to pass at least three Science subjects. 5. The aforesaid stand taken by the Respondents-State has been countered by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the authorities like Respondent-Bihar Intermediate Education Council (for short Intermediate Council), which grant I.Sc. certificate are the best authority to adjudge whether +2 Vocational Science certificates obtained by some petitioners as equivalent to I.Sc. certificate or not. In this connection, they relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Intermediate Council to show that even the Intermediate Council has accepted that +2 certificate with one Science subject as equivalent to I.Sc. certificate. 6. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Intermediate Council, it has been stated that their stand is that by Communique No. 56/96 dated 4th September, 1996 they have given declaration that the students who passed the Vocational course will be entitled for admission in Degree course in Arts and Commerce because the Vocational course in Intermediate classes is equivalent to Intermediate Arts and Commerce. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary, Vocational Education of the Intermediate Council issued a certificate showing equivalency under the head "To whom it may concerns" (Annexure-7). Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary, Vocational Education of the Intermediate Council issued a certificate showing equivalency under the head "To whom it may concerns" (Annexure-7). In the said certificate, it has not been stated that +2 Vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate Science rather it states that the equivalency to Intermediate (+2) Vocational course is determined on the basis of a related subject offered by a vocational candidate. Two years Health and Para-medical Course at Intermediate (+2) stage coupled with related subject Chemistry or Biology has equivalence to Intermediate Science standard i.e. I.Sc. in Bihar. By the certificate aforesaid, the equivalency has been granted to the examinees who passed Health and Para-medical (+2) Vocational Examination for joining a job in the Government only where I.Sc. the minimum prescribed qualification and not for higher studies. In fact, the aforesaid stand as taken by the Intermediate Council, has been relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners in their support to show that (+2) Vocational certificate is equivalent to (+2) Science certificate, which is equivalent to I.Sc. certificate. 7. So far as the question relating to limiting the advertisement to persons who have obtained M.L.T. training from an Institution recognised by the State of Bihar is concerned, the Counsel for the State produced a Letter No. 38(22) Health, dated 15th January, 1998 written by the Deputy Secretary of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department. By the said letter while certain instruction has been sent to the Counsel for the State, it has been mentioned that all the candidates having qualification of I.Sc. (10+2 Science) and one year M.L.T. training obtained from an Institution recognised by State Government or Government of India or other State Governments, will be eligible to appear in the interview and the Counsel has been instructed to proceed in the cases accordingly. Thus, practically, the Respondents-State has conceded the grievance of the petitioners to that effect. 8. The learned Advocate General also accepted that if the M.L.T. training certificate granted by an Institution of Government of India and/or recognised, by other State Governments is not accepted, it may violate the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, practically, the Respondents-State has conceded the grievance of the petitioners to that effect. 8. The learned Advocate General also accepted that if the M.L.T. training certificate granted by an Institution of Government of India and/or recognised, by other State Governments is not accepted, it may violate the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, according to him, such M.L.T. certificate granted by other Institutions of Government of India and/or recognised by other State Governments should be equivalent to M.L.T. certificate, as is being provided by an Institution situated in the State of Bihar and is recognised by the State of Bihar. 9. The Counsel for the State gave background for coming out with the impugned advertisement for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians. It was pointed out that for appointment to the post of Physiotherapist, earlier one advertisement was published in which certificate granted by one of the Institutions of the State of Bihar was only recognised and no provision was made with respect to the persons who obtained such certificate from other authority/State including Government of India. At that stage, a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2748 of 1995 was filed on behalf of one All Bihar Un-employed Physiotherapists Association and others against the State of Bihar. In the said case, the Counsel for the State conceded that in order to meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution, a corrigendum to the main advertisement was required to be published to enable other eligible candidates, if any, who might have obtained diploma in Physiotherapists from recognised Institutions. In view of the aforesaid stand, the Court declared the writ petition infructuous against the aforesaid advertisement. Subsequently, when corrigendum was issued, candidates having obtained certificates granted by any Institution (not particular one) recognised by the State of Bihar were allowed to apply for such appointment to the post of Physiotherapist. Again, another writ petition was filed by one Ajay Kumar and another being C.W.J.C. No. 8456 of 1995. However, the learned Single Judgs of this Court did not choose to interfere with the said corrigendum and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 14th December, 1996 on the ground that as the corrigendum was issued in the light of earlier order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2748 of 1995 on the basis of concession given by the State. 10. 10. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions of this Court and find that no finding has been given by this Court relating to the question as to whether the Respondents can limit the qualification with respect to grant of M.L.T. certificate only to such candidates who obtained such certificate from an Institution recognised by the State of Bihar and thus can discriminate others who obtained such M.L.T. certificate from other Institutions, including the Institutions of Government of India and the Institutions recognised by other State Government. In fact, in C.W.J.C. No. 2748 of 1995, the State of Bihar conceded that in order to meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, a corrigendum was required to be issued to enable other eligible candidates who have obtained similar qualification from any recognised Institutions. 11. In the present case, it is not possible for this Court to decide under writ jurisdiction as to whether +2 Vocational Certificate obtained by one or other petitioner is equivalent to I.Sc. and/or 10+2 Science Certificate granted by recognised authorities/Boards like Bihar Intermediate Education Council, C.B.S.E. and/or I.C.S.E. or not. In my view, it requires a detailed study in different aspects including the number of Science subjects required to be passed and its standard. 12. In view of the recent stand taken by the Respondents in their letter dated 15th January, 1998, by which they have sent instructions to the Counsel for the State and the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General, all the parties including the Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the intervenors, the petitioners, the State of Bihar and the Intermediate Council, have agreed for the following consented orders: (i) The Respondents-State will come out with corrigendum relating to appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians in different Hospitals and Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar, in, continuation of its earlier advertisement published on 25th May, 1997 in different newspapers. In the said advertisement, the word ,RAJYA shall be deleted from Clause (3) therein, so that in the eligibility criteria, while the basic qualification of I.Sc. or 10+2 Science will remain intact, and the persons obtained M.L.T. training from any Government recognised Institutions, are made eligible to file such applications. In the said advertisement, the word ,RAJYA shall be deleted from Clause (3) therein, so that in the eligibility criteria, while the basic qualification of I.Sc. or 10+2 Science will remain intact, and the persons obtained M.L.T. training from any Government recognised Institutions, are made eligible to file such applications. In the said corrigendum, the date of eligibility to apply for the post will remain the same, as was made in the advertisement dated 25th May, 1997. This means, the candidates who were eligible by the time the earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 was issued, only they can apply and not any other candidate who became eligible subsequent to the earlier advertisement. (ii) So far as equivalency of certificate obtained by any person, including +2 Vocational Certificates, as obtained by petitioners are concerned, if there remains any dispute, it is the State of Bihar, which will decide the equivalency. But, while deciding such equivalency of any certificate(s), including +2 Vocational certificate, they should consult from any one or other Expert Body/Authority, including Intermediate Council/C.B.S.E./I.C.S.E. and seek their opinion, who grant such certificate(s). (iii) If any of the petitioners and/or other eligible candidates have already applied for appointment in pursuance of earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 and/or apply within time in pursuance of corrigendum to be published, the Respondents will consider their cases for appointments, in accordance with law, subject to eligibility. (iv) No appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician shall be made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25th May, 1997 without publication of corrigendum, as stated above. It is expected that the Respondents will come out with the corrigendum, on an early date, which must be published within a period of two months. Thereafter they will fill up the posts immediately, within six months. 13. All The writ petitions and disposed of with the aforesaid agreed and consented order, which should be treated to be the directions of this Court. However, on the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order. as to costs.