IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9997 of 2022 ====================================================== 1. Om Prakash Chauhan Son of Late Harendra Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Vivekanand Nagar, Bhagwanpur, P.S. - Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur. 2. Chandra Prakash son of Late Ram Kaleshwar Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Chakahamad Bhikhanpura, P.S. - Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur. 3. Abhay Kumar son of Late Nand Kishore Sharma, Resident of Mohalla Ward no.- 46, Khadi Bhandar road, Opp. Nai Talim Vidyalya, Azad Nagar Colony, P.S. - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Karya Officer, Nagar Vikash And Aawash Department, Patna, Bihar. 5. The Town Commissioner, MRDA (Dissolve), Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, MRDA (Dissolve), Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abbas Haider, SC-6 : Mr. Syed Hussain Majid, AC to SC-6 For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 6 13-08-2026 Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Hussain Majid, learned AC to SC-6 representing the State as also Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 2/8 12.05.2022 passed by respondent no.4, by which the petition filed by the petitioners in light of order dated 29.01.2022 passed in CWJC No.18336 of 2021 by this Hon'ble court has rejected by the respondent no.4 stating there in that the petitioners are not entitled for the treating them as degree holder in engineering as they are not government employ and on this basis the respondent no.4 has rejected the claim of the petitioners and while deciding the claim of the petitioners to treat them as Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) or graduate engineering degree holder in respect of work area in structural engineering practice from Diploma in Engineering and while doing so the respondent has failed to consider the Re. F18-19/75/T-2 issued by Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, (Department of Educational Technical), New Delhi, dated 26.05.1977 (Annexure-3 of this writ petition) and the respondent also ailed to consider the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi in W.C.(C) 4879/2014, С.М. Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 3/8 No.- 9743-9745/2014, order dated 05.08.2014 by which the Hon'ble court has directed to consider the treat Diploma in Engineering as Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) or graduate engineering degree holder in respect of work area in structural engineering practice and such order has passed for getting benefit to candidates which have employed as government employee but this order never barred private practicing diploma holder in engineering or government employee diploma holder in engineering and treating the petitioners as Engineering as Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) or graduate engineering degree holder in respect of work area in structural engineering practice never cause any technical burden either on state government or central government and also a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction & commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioners, and treat them as equivalent to Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) or Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 4/8 graduate engineer as per law, as the petitioners have more than 20 years experience Diploma in Engineering (i.e. surveyor draughtsman) in structural engineering practice and also to give benefits to the petitioners in respect of work area, as given to Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) or graduate engineering degree holder in respect of work arca in structural engineering practice, so that they could also work like such degree holder and also direct the respondents to consider and act upon order/ letter no.- F18- 19/75/T-2, dated 26.05.1977 issued by ministry of education for enhancement of carrier in their field and / or pass any other order/ orders which may deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioners are having Diploma in Engineering and on the basis of application submitted by them to the then Muzaffarpur Regional Developmental Authority (MRDA) (now Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation), they were granted license which was renewed from time to time. 4. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court in WP(C) 4879 Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 5/8 of 2014 (CMM No.9743/9745/2014) passed an order on 05.08.2014 with a direction that after ten years experience, the degree holder Engineers (civil) have to be upgraded. 5. Taking cue from the said order, representation was preferred by the petitioners before the Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna. It was taken up by the appellate authority and after differentiating the case of the present petitioners with that of the petitioners in the Delhi High Court’s order and after recording that they are diploma holders had never have been the employees of ‘the MRDA’ which is quite different from the petitioners of the Delhi High Court’s order where they were permanent employees, the license was renewed from time to time, they are not the Engineer degree holders rather are Diploma degree holders, vide an order dated 12.05.2022, the claim was rejected. 6. Aggrieved, the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that they have been with the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation (earlier MRDA) for decades and such, the order of Delhi High Court is applicable in their case. 8. A counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has come and learned State counsel has taken this Court to Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 6/8 paragraph no.11 and 13 which read as under: “11. That in the Building Byelaws, 2014 and revised Building Byelaws, 2022, qualification and experience of Supervisor has been mentioned. "(A) Qualification and Experience-The minimum qualifications for an Supervisor shall be recognized Diploma in Civil or Architecture, or Draftsmanship in Civil or Architectural Assistantship plus 5 year experience in building design, construction and supervision. (B) Competence-The licensed supervisor shall be entitled to submit : i. All plans and related information connected with building permit for residential buildings on plot up to 100 sq.m. and up to two stories. ii. Certificate of supervision for building as per (i)". 13. That it is further submitted that the petitioners are not the Government employees and also do not possess the qualification of Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 7/8 ‘Engineer’ and therefore, only for having experience of 10 years, they will not be entitled for treating them equivalent to the ‘Engineer’ and therefore, the representation of the petitioners have been disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2022 by passing speaking and reasoned order and rejecting the claim of the petitioners, which is legal, valid and justified.” 9. The Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation has also filed affidavit and has only recorded that they are Diploma holders and not the Engineer degree holders and the order has been passed by ‘the Department.’ 10. Having heard the parties and perusing the different documents, the uncontroverted facts that are on record: (i) the petitioners are Diploma degree holders; (ii) they preferred an application and got license by the erstwhile ‘MRDA’. It was further renewed from time to time; (iii) they never were employees of the erstwhile ‘MRDA’ nor they are Engineer Degree holders. 11. In that background, the order of the Delhi High Patna High Court CWJC No.9997 of 2022(6) dt.13-08-2026 8/8 Court under no circumstances comes to their rescue. 12. This takes the Court to only one conclusion, the writ petition is bereft of merit. Accordingly, dismissed. No Cost. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U