STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Bihar and its officers have tiled the present appeal challenging the order dated 10.9.2001 passed by a Seamed Singie Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10627 of 2001 [2001 (4) PLJR 325], directing them to issue appointment letters to the writ petitioner -respondents and other eligible candidates on the posts of Assistant in the Secretariat and its attached offices within a period of fortnight from the date of the order.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board ') issued an advertisement in the year 1985 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant in the Secretariat and its attached offices, having fallen vacant up to the year 1985 -86. The number of the vacancies was not notified in the advertisement but later on the same was notified as 357. The examination was held in 1987 and the recommendation by the Board was made in the year 1990. Out of the successful candidates, 309 candidates were given appointments and others were empanelled and made to wait for the release of the further vacancies. As no vacancies were communicated by the State Government, no appointment could be made. The empanelled candidates, filed a writ application in this Court and this Court after hearing the parties directed the State Government to fill up the vacancies not only up to the publication of the result in the year 1990, but also the vacancies having existed up to 1991. The State of Bihar challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Apex Court and the Apex Court finally disposed of the matter on 8.10.1993 and the said judgment is reported in (1994) 1 S.C.C. 126 : 1994(1) PLJR (SC) 41 (State of Bihar V/s. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union). The Apex Court held that the selected candidates on account of being empanelled did not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. However, taking into consideration the fact, situation and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court modified the judgment of the High Court and ordered that the vacancies up to December 31, 1988, were to be filled up from the aforesaid panel and a fresh advertisement should be issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant having fallen vacant from 1989 - 1992 up to 31.12.1993. It also issued other directions, which are not relevant for the present case.

(3.) AT this place, it is important to mention that subsequent to advertisement no. 1/93 with regard to which the present dispute arises, in 1999 subsequent advertisement has been issued to fill up the subsequent vacancies.