Raghvender Kumar Jha vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 125 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7261 of 2020
     ======================================================

1. Raghvender Kumar Jha (Male) aged about 25 years, Son of Ram Narayan Jha, Resident of Village- Athar, P.S.- Biraul, District- Darbhanga.

2. Rupak Kumar Singh (Male) aged about 24 years, Son of Raghubeer Singh, Resident of Village- Chamtha, P.S.- Bachwara, District- Begusarai.

3. Kanchan Kumar, (male) aged about 28 years, Son of Birendra Prasad Shrivastav, Resident of Village/Mohallah- Tajpur, P.S.- Dharampur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Additional Chief Secretary, Administrative Department, Government of Bihar.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary cum Director of Bihar Administrative Reforms Mission Society.

3. Bihar Administrative Reforms Mission Society through Officer on Special Duty (OSD).

4. District Magistrate Muzaffarpur.

5. Deputy Collector (District establishment Branch), Collectrate Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey Ms. Aprajita, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-01-2021 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

After hearing the parties on 27.11.2020, this Court

has formulated the following questions:-

"(i) Whether the decision dated 31.07.2019 is retrospective in nature ?

(ii) Whether the decision dated 01.07.2019 has the effect of nullifying the selection Patna High Court CWJC No.7261 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

process already completed ?

(iii) Whether the order dated 01.07.2020 adversely affect the life of District Wise Panel prepared already ?"

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

submits that in terms of the decision dated 31.07.2019, the

respondents have decided to change the selection process and

modality of appointment for the post of Executive Assistants

and thus, out of 1723 empanelled candidates, those who were

offered appointment after 31.07.2019 their services have been

dispensed with. He submits that empanelment of any candidates

does not create any indefeasible right. He places reliance upon

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan

Dash vs Union Of India reported in (AIR 1991 SC 1612).

Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that once panel

was prepared and approved, it was for the purpose of

appointment and after preparation of panel, the respondents

have appointed petitioner no. 2 which was subsequently

cancelled referring the decision dated 31.07.2019. Learned

counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot claim

indefeasible right but at the same time, the respondents cannot

be allowed to make appointment and take a plea that persons Patna High Court CWJC No.7261 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

appointed out of the panel have no right to continue on the post.

Considering the totality of the fact, the Court is of

the view that the respondents have changed the selection

process and take steps for fresh appointment but once they have

prepared the panel either they have to exhaust the panel or allow

the panel to work during the currency of its life. In the instant

case, life of panel was for three years and the petitioner no. 2

was appointed during the currency of panel and as such, the

action of the respondents cancelling appointment of petitioner

no.2 is bad in law. The submission of Mr. Pandey is well-

founded.

Once the respondents have decided to prepare panel

and after preparation of panel, approved the panel and fixed the

life of panel for three years, in that situation they have the right

to take steps for fresh appointment only after exhausting the life

of panel but they cannot be allowed to adopt "pick and choose

policy" and allow the said panel for appointment of certain

persons and after appointment cancel the appointment of

petitioner no.2 saying that they have decided to change the

modality of appointment and selection procedure.

Considering the aforesaid, the Court is constrained

to hold that the action of the respondents in cancelling Patna High Court CWJC No.7261 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

appointment of petitioner no. 2 is unsustainable in law. The

same is accordingly, quashed. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

(respondent no 4) is directed to accept joining of petitioner no. 2

forthwith.

So far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they

may represent the authority for consideration and for issuance of

appointment letters as they were empanelled in accordance with

law and they have a right to consideration for appointment

during the currency of the panel against the existing vacancies

at the earliest within a period of three months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

BT/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          18.01.2021
Transmission Date       N.A.