counsel for the appellants and after perusing the materials on record, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. The writ petitioner having been appointed initially on the post of Medical Officer, later on confirmed upon the recommendation of the Bihar Public service Commission on the post of Medical Officer, cannot have a legally sustainable case for being appointed on the post of Lecturer only on the ground that he possessed qualification similar to that required for a Lecturer. It is well settled law that at the time appointment is made on a particular post and certain minimum qualifications are the pre-requisite, any claim of a person having a superior or better qualification which may also make him entitled for a higher post, will not confer any right on that person to be appointed to the higher post even though consideration is being made for a lower post, as in the present case. The consideration never being for the post of Lecturer in the case of respondent-writ petitioner, he can have no claim in law for being absorbed or appointed on the said post. Once this Court holds that the petitioner could have no claim for being absorbed or appointed on the post of Lecturer in the manner he has claimed, the second question becomes academic, since it is not the case of respondentwrit petitioner that the post of Medical Officer cannot be apportioned between the States of Bihar and Jharkhand.
