====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Sheoji Singh Resident Of Village And P.O v. 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secreta
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15678 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Sheoji Singh Resident Of Village And P.O. Sarkanda, P.S. Ishopur Barhat, District- Bhagalpur 2. Raj Kumar Oraon S/O Sri Hargovind Oraon Resident Of Village- Masuria, P.O. Itahri, P.S. Ishopur Barahat, District- Bhagalpur 3. Manoj Kumar Mandal S/O Rambriksha Mandal Resident Of Village- Chowki Niyadpur, P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. Commisisoner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur 3. Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bhagalpur 4. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 5. Nazarat Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinay Raj For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kr. Sc7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 29-01-2014 Since this writ application has been restored today by a separate order passed in M.J.C. No. 1754 of 2013, this Court has also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merit of this case. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows: “…. to command the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies of Grade IV employee at the various Government offices under Bhagalpur Collectorate”.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the case of Md. Shafi Alam, it has to be noted that the same was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7995 of 2004 by which certain Patna High Court CWJC No.15678 of 2012 (3) dt.29-01-2014 5/5 observations were made with regard to earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 13268 of 1992 or its resultant contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 487 of 1998. The Court, therefore, was considering the applicability of the earlier orders and the reasons for there being non-included in the panel. That would be distinguishing feature of the present case because here it is the case of the petitioners that their names did not figure in the panel dated 12.06.2004 and that will be end of the matter. That being so, this writ application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/-
Arguments
Mr. Abhinav Raj, learend counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has Patna High Court CWJC No.15678 of 2012 (3) dt.29-01-2014 2/5 basically concentrated on two aspects namely that when the petitioners were also applicant in terms of a selection process their names ought to have been also included in a list which was prepared on 12.06.2004 and their non-inclusion of the names in the aforementioned panel by itself would be violative of the right to protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that persons similarly situated alike the petitioners have been given benefit by an order passed by this Court on 07.02.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 4916 of 2005 and its analogous cases. To that extent he has also placed reliance by a subsequent order of this Court dated 20.01.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 7995 of 2004. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, having filed a counter affidavit has explained that the petitioners cannot be appointed on the basis of a direction given in the cases of Binod Kumar Jha & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4916 of 2005) inasmuch as whatever was said in that order was only with regard to the candidates whose names were already included in the panel dated 12.06.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has submitted that true it is that the name of the petitioners were not included in the panel dated 12.06.2004 but then there names were Patna High Court CWJC No.15678 of 2012 (3) dt.29-01-2014 3/5 already existing in the earlier panel and therefore in all fairness their names ought to have been also incorporated in the panel dated 12.06.2004. In the considered opinion of this Court, appointment of a person is based on selection and panel has to be basically governed by the number of post mentioned in the list to be selected. in the case, in hand, there is no involvement of any section and in fact it is the one panel dated 12.06.2004 about which the learned single Judge had held as follows: to “….. The question that arises in these writ petition is whether the list ultimately prepared on 12th June, 2004 can be said to be a panel which would lapse after one year from the date thereof, unless a contrary intention is expressed while preparing the same. I do not think that the list of the candidates, entitled to be appointed on the basis of the 1993 Policy, made on 12th June, 2004 pursuant the advertisement published in 2001 can be said to be a panel. It is only a list of persons who have been found to be eligible to be appointed on the basis of the 1993 Policy of the State Government and cannot be termed a panel which would stand lapsed after expiry of one year. The promise as was made in the 1993 Policy is to be given appointments to all those persons, who are entitled to be appointed on the basis of the criteria laid down in the said policy. Pursuant to the advertisement, the objective of which was to locate the eligible candidates, scrutiny of the response thereto by the various applicants to verify the credentials of the applicants to ascertain whether they come within that policy of the Government, the list was prepared. There is no question of that list lapsing after expiry of one year from the date of preparation thereof. Therefore, it is declared that the said list has not lapsed and is still continuing. The respondents and, in particular, the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur is directed to provide to the appointing authority roster clearance within fifteen days from today, if not already provided and the appointing authority is directed to fill up the vacant posts on the basis of such roster clearance from the list in chronological order within a period of 30 days therefrom. It is made clear that after the vacancies are supplied, the list will not die its natural death. The same will continue until those, who have been listed in the panel, are provided with an appointment in terms of the policy of the government Patna High Court CWJC No.15678 of 2012 (3) dt.29-01-2014 4/5 taken in 1993, provided, of course, they are otherwise eligible to be appointed, i.e. , they have not reached the age of superannuation. With the above directions, these writ petition are disposed of.” As would be evident, whatever was said by the learned single Judge was with regard to persons whose names were included in the panel dated 12.06.2004 and that was not to be made applicable for any one whose name was not included in the panel or the list dated 12.06.2004. The Government rules are very clear and specific that the panel can not have an endless life. Secondly, the Government rule is that the panel will be valid for one year from the date of its preparation. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners’ names were figured in the panel dated 12.06.2004. The specific case of the petitioners that their names were wrongly not earlier included in the panel, will be also of no avail because life of that panel in fact had already come to an end after expiry of period of one year and at least there was no protection to them alike the order passed by this Court in the case of Binod Kumar Jha (supra). As with regard to reference and reliance to an order of