Smt.Pavitra Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors

it is submitted by learned counsel that no mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner particularly when the decision of the State 5 Government not to accept the earlier recommendation of her name is not under challenge and subsequently there is a recommendation by the State Government and concurrence by the Central Board of the name of respondent no. 5 for which decision is yet to be taken by the State Government. It is submitted that the writ application is not at all maintainable in the above facts and circumstance and has, as a matter of fact, become infructuous. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find that any mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner in the present matter. It is evident that no legal right had arisen in favour of the petitioner by mere recommendation of her name in the panel and its concurrence by the Central Board. There is no vested right in such matters in a person whose name is recommended in a panel. More so when in the present matter, the State Government itself had not taken a final decision as to whether the Board which had ceased to function from the year 2003 should be reconstituted at the time when the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made. Subsequently, the second panel has been recommended and the name of respondent no. 5 has been approved by the Chairman of the Central Board and thus the earlier recommendation has ceased to exist. In the said circumstances, there is absolutely no legal right in the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus as the earlier recommendation and the concurrence of the Central Board in her favour is not in existence. In view of the above circumstances, this Court does not 6 find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)