Patna High Court
Sudhanshu Shekhar vs The State Of Bihar on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1460 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21461 of 2018
======================================================
1. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Son of Mahendra Kumar Das, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Bhachhi, P.S. and District- Madhubani.
2. Abid Akhtar, Son of Nayeem Akhtar, Resident of village- Mushkipur, PS-
Jamalpur Gogri, District- Khagaria.
3. Kashi Nath Singh, Son of Kanhaiya Singh, Resident of C-21/65, B-11,
Nagar Mahapalika colony, PS- Chetganj, District- Varanasi (U.P).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna - 800001.
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Old Secretariat Building Patna- 800015.
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Bailey Road,
Patna.
5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary,
Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Joint Secretary - cum- Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. Abhinaw Anand, Son of Ramanand Singh, Resident of village- sion, PS-
Bhabua, District- Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mrs. Ritika Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 27-07-2022
Heard learned counsels for respective parties.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1460 of 2019 dt.27-07-2022
02. The appellants have assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 23.09.2019 passed in CWJC No. 21461 of
2018.
03. Appellants are candidates for recruitment to Class-II
post (Gazetted Officer) in the State Cadre Service under the State
of Bihar with reference to combined competitive examination in
respect of 56th to 59th combined competitive examination. The
appellants were candidates pursuant to the advertisement issued on
01.09.2014. Finally, results were notified on 18.08.2018 and BPSC
has recommended by forwarding selected candidates for process of
appointing them to Class-II post.
04. Undisputedly, appellants were not selected and their
names were not reflected in the final select list. The appellants
noticed that some of the candidates who were selected and
appointed have not reported for duty due to various reasons thus
number of vacancies have occurred and those vacancies were
required to be filled up among the next more merited candidates in
the respective category. Thus, a writ petition was filed and it was
dismissed on 23.09.2019. Hence, the present LPA.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that if the appointed candidates failed to report for duty
pursuant to their selection and appointment in Class-II gazetted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1460 of 2019 dt.27-07-2022
post in that event vacancies accrued due to non-reporting of
selected and appointed candidates were required to be filled up
while operating next more merited candidates with reference to the
respective categories.
06. In support of the aforesaid contention appellants
counsel has not furnished any material information like policy
decision of the State that if selected and appointed candidate failed
to report for duty that vacancy is required to be filled up by next
more merited candidate with reference to the respective category.
07. On the other hand, State Government have evolved a
policy in the year 1977 in respect of non-reporting of a selected
and appointed candidate vacancy is required to be carried forward
to the next recruitment. The same was reiterated while revising the
policy on 16.07.2007 also.
08. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the
petitioners have not established their statutory right accrued in
favour of each of them that due to non-filling up of appointed
candidate vacancies, their names to be considered.
09. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Kiran Meena and Anr. reported in (2018) 12 SCC
503 held that whenever selected candidate does not join, the
resultant vacancy shall be treated as fresh vacancy. The law laid
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1460 of 2019 dt.27-07-2022
down in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case in
hand, therefore, appellants have not made out case.
10. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1460 of 2019
stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
