ORDER I.A. No.6629 of 2013 has been filed bringing on record the order dated 15.12.2010 whereby the representation of the petitioners has been rejected. 2. I.A.No.6630 of 2013 has been filed for staying the further proceedings pursuant to an advertisement published on 6.9.2013 for appointment of the post of Deputy Project Director etc. 3. The petitioners seek quashing of part of the letter no.5060 dated 25.8.2010 issued by the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar by which latter has decided to make appointments to the post of Director, Deputy Director of Bihar Agriculture Management Extension Training Institute (BAMETI) and Project Director, Deputy Project Director of Agriculture Technology Management Agencies (ATMA) and Block Technology Manager amongst the persons employed in Bihar Agriculture Service in Category I i.e. Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy). 4. Bihar Agriculture Services is divided into 9 categories. The Engineering wing of the Bihar Agriculture Service known as Bihar Agriculture (Engineering) Service which comes in Category II. The Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy) is in Category I. The petitioners belong to B.A.S.(Category II). The decision has been challenged on the ground as being in teeth of guide lines of Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Government of India dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-5). 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has countered the submissions that there has been no violation of guide lines of the Central Government. The State in its wisdom has taken a policy decision to make appointment to the post of Director, Deputy Director, Project Director from amongst Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy) which comes in Category I as being most suited for the job. Further more, the Court would generally not interfere with the policy decisions of the State Government unless it is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Constitutional and Statutory provisions. In support of his submission, the learned State counsel has relied upon decisions reported in 1998(4) SCC 117 (State of Punjab & Ors Vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors), (1997) 9 SCC 495 (Krishnan Kakkanth Vs Government of Kerala & Ors) and 2006(2) PLJR 201 (M/s S.R. Construction Private Limited vs The State of Bihar & Ors). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court can interfere even with the policy decision if it sub-serves the larger public interest and to ensure that the respondent functions within the constitutional limit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court can interfere even with the policy decision if it sub-serves the larger public interest and to ensure that the respondent functions within the constitutional limit. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1989 SC 1899 (Asif Hameed & Ors Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors), 1990 SC 1277 (M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. & anr Vs Union of India & Ors) and 2005(3) PLJR SC 97 (M/s Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & anr). He further submits that the State Government is bound by the parameter set by the Central Government with respect to recruitment etc. as the Scheme is centrally sponsored scheme. 7. Before I take up the rival submissions of the parties for considerations, it would be necessary to notice the fact of the case in brief. The Department of Agriculture, Government of India has executed and sponsored scheme of “support to State extension programme for extension reforms” for strengthening the agriculture extension delivery system of the State. Under the Scheme 90% of cost of work plan for the items included in the cafeteria of actively of the Government of India Guide Lines is to be borne by the Central Government and 10% cost is to be borne by the State Government and for items not included in the guide lines, 100% cost is to be borne by the State Government. Further under the provisions of the Schemes, Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) and Bihar Agriculture Management and Extension Training Institute (BAMETI) is formed as Society under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) has already been constituted and is functional in all the 38 districts. The Bihar Agriculture Management and Extension Training Institute (BAMETI) is its Apex level training Institute with its Headquarters, at Patna. 8. The Central Government in its guide lines contained in Annexure-A to counter affidavit has provided for different types of posts. For instance, the post of State Coordinator is sanctioned at the State level. The Scheme provides for the post of Director and Deputy Director for the Apex level Training Institute i.e. BAMETI. 8. The Central Government in its guide lines contained in Annexure-A to counter affidavit has provided for different types of posts. For instance, the post of State Coordinator is sanctioned at the State level. The Scheme provides for the post of Director and Deputy Director for the Apex level Training Institute i.e. BAMETI. The post of Project Director, Deputy Project Director has been provided at the district level and the post of Block Technology Manager is provided at the Block level. Annexure-III (b) of the guide lines (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) provide for the number of post, suggested mode of recruitment, pay scale/remuneration, qualification and suggested experience. The guidelines further provide that appointment would be on contractual basis. Clause 2.2 of the guidelines (Annexure-A, Page 97) which is relevant in the context, provides that all posts (Director/Deputy Director/Project Director/Deputy Project Director) may be filled by deputation/Secondment/appointment for the scheme period or such other mode as the State Government may deem appropriate. (underlining is mine for emphasis) 9. As noticed in the earlier paragraphs, the Bihar Agriculture Service is divided into 9 categories. The Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy) falls in Category I and Bihar Agriculture (Engineering) Service falls in Category II. The petitioners who belong to Bihar Agriculture (Engineering) Service (Category II) is aggrieved by decisions contained in letter dated 25.8.2010 of respondent Agriculture Department whereby they have decided to fill up the post of Project Director, Deputy Project Director of ATMA from amongst the candidates belonging to Bihar Agriculture Service category I. The challenge to the said policy of recruitment has been made on the basis of letter dated 14.6.2010 of Department of Agriculture & Cooperation annexed with the representation dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure-5). The petitioners state that as per letter dated 14.6.2010 of Joint Director (Extension Reforms), Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, the qualification for the post of Director is to be filled by deputation/ secondment / appointment is prescribed in Annexure-III(b) of the said letter. The qualification so prescribed is as follows: “Post Graduate in Agriculture/allied sector with adequate experience in Agri.Extension Management”. 10. The petitioners state that the respondent State in view of the qualification mentioned in the said letter cannot exclude the allied sector from consideration for appointment to the post of Project Director of BAMETI. The qualification so prescribed is as follows: “Post Graduate in Agriculture/allied sector with adequate experience in Agri.Extension Management”. 10. The petitioners state that the respondent State in view of the qualification mentioned in the said letter cannot exclude the allied sector from consideration for appointment to the post of Project Director of BAMETI. The petitioners contend that the person working in Category I having qualification of B.Sc Agriculture/M. Sc Agronomy are responsible for transfer of the Agronomical Technology to the farmer, whereas officer of Category II having qualification of B.Tech in Agriculture Engineering and M.Tech in Agriculture Engineering are responsible to extend the Agriculture Engineering Technology to the farmer. Thus without involvement of Engineering Agronomical sector the project would not be completed. Further more the impugned order has overlooked the requirement of modern technology in implementing the scheme known as “Support to State Extension Programme for Extension Reforms”. 11. As per State, para 2.2 of the guidelines provide that the posts may be filled by deputation/secondment/appointment for the scheme period or such other mode as the State Government may deem appropriate. The State in its affidavit stated that after detailed consideration of the functions of various wings of Bihar Agriculture Service, has decided to recruit the Project Director, Deputy Project Director from Bihar Agriculture (Agronomy) falls in Category I as they are most suited for the post. 12. The main dispute is whether exclusion of Bihar Agriculture (Engineering) Service falls in Category II for appointment to the post of Project Director, Deputy Project Director is in violation of guide lines of Central Government and whether such decision suffers from vice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness so as to contravene Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. It is well settled by catena of decision that the Court would generally not interfere with the policy decision of the Government unless it is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Constitutional and Statutory provisions or in larger public interest. Reference can be made in this respect to the decisions reported in 1998(4) SCC 117 (supra), (1997) 9 SCC 495 (Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs Gopinath, has further observed that the court would be within its right to interfere with the policy decision if it sub-serves the larger public interest. None of the parties disputes the propositions of law as settled by Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs Gopinath, has further observed that the court would be within its right to interfere with the policy decision if it sub-serves the larger public interest. None of the parties disputes the propositions of law as settled by Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on Annexure-III(b) to the letter dated 14.6.2010 of the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Government of India which has laid down the qualification for appointment to the post of Director, BAMETI. The qualification required is as Post Graduate in Agriculture/allied sector with adequate experience in Agri. Extension Management. According to the petitioners one who is a Post Graduate in Agriculture/Allied Sectors is also to be considered for appointment to the post of Project Director, Deputy Project Director in BAMETI. In my view, the letter lays down the eligibility for deputation/secondment/appointment to the post of Project Director, Deputy Project Director. The Government would have discretion taking the suitability aspect to make selection from amongst such persons who holds Post Graduate in Agriculture/Allied Sectors. Para 2.2 of the guide lines empowers the State Government the mode of recruitment. The State Government on consideration of nature of work performed by different categories took policy decision to make such appointments on deputation/secondment/appointment from Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy) Category I as best suited. 15. Now the issue before this Court is whether the decision is reasonable, just and has reasonable rational with the object sought to be achieved. If the Court finds that the said decision is capricious and arbitrary, the petitioners would make out a case for interference. 16. I find from the guide lines that the main object of the Scheme is to strengthen the agriculture extension delivery system of the State as agriculture which still today is major source of livelihood to teeming millions. It appears from counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6 that the Bihar Agriculture Service Category I(Agronomy) is the principal category responsible for transfer of agriculture technology to farmers. The officers of this category are posted as Block Agriculture Officer, Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer, District Agriculture Officer, Divisional Joint Director, Agriculture and at the State level Additional Director (Extension). It appears from counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6 that the Bihar Agriculture Service Category I(Agronomy) is the principal category responsible for transfer of agriculture technology to farmers. The officers of this category are posted as Block Agriculture Officer, Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer, District Agriculture Officer, Divisional Joint Director, Agriculture and at the State level Additional Director (Extension). In paragraph 20 it has been stated that the State Government has considered the requirement of extension delivery system, its convergence with other schemes and guidelines of the scheme as mentioned in para no.9. As such they decided to fill the positions of Deputy Director, BAMETI and Project Director/Deputy Project Director of ATMA from Senior Officers of Category I of Bihar Agriculture Service. In paragraph 30 it has been stated that each of the two categories of Bihar Agriculture Service namely Category I & II has a distinct role to play for implementation of the agriculture development schemes. The professional qualification of Graduate in Agriculture makes an important interface between the Agriculture university and the farmers. In paragraph 32 it has been stated that the Agriculture Engineering graduates are employed in the category 2 of the Bihar Agriculture Service and they have competence with respect to inputs farmer use for cultivation i.e. the agriculture tools and machinery. 17. I find that Members of Bihar Agriculture Service Category I & II are in employment of Agriculture Department and if the government decides that appointment of persons from a particular wing or category would be more useful for the implementation of the scheme, the Court would be hesitant to substitute its opinion in its place. As a word of caution, the persons to be selected for the post of Project Director and Deputy Project Director must have the minimum eligibility provided in Annexure-III(b) of letter dated 14.6.2010 of Joint Director (Extension Reforms), Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Government of India. 18. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the government decision to make appointment to the post of Project Director and Deputy Project Director from persons of Bihar Agriculture Service, Category I. It would be open for the Government to consider the option of involving the members of the Bihar Agriculture Service Category II wherever it may be expedient or required in the large interest of the farmers and agriculture. 19. 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.