LAWS(PAT)-2012-2-114

SUBODH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 16, 2012
SUBODH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge under order dated 5th August, 2011.

(2.) The respondent no. 4, the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") published Advertisement No. 4 of 2007 to invite applications from eligible candidates for the 48th to 52nd Common Combined (Main) Competitive Examination, 2008 for appointment to various cadres in the State Government service. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied under the category of Extremely Backward Class. The petitioner successfully went through the Preliminary Test and the Competitive Test. The petitioner secured aggregate 815 marks at the competitive written examination and the viva voce; the cut-off marks for the candidates in Extremely Backward Class. Nevertheless his name was not recommended by the Commission for want of available vacancy. Therefore, this petition.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner could not have been denied appointment although he had secured the cut-off marks on the ground of want of vacancy. He has submitted that not all successful candidates recommended by the Commission accepted the appointment; many of such candidates did not join the duty resulting into some unfilled vacancies. He has submitted that in the cadre of Labour Superintendent, out of 4 posts reserved for Extremely Backward Class candidates, one person did not report for duty. The said post, therefore, was required to be filled up from the panel prepared by the Commission pursuant to the abovereferred 48th to 52nd Common Combined Competitive Examination. The petitioner being the next candidate on the panel, he has a legitimate right to appointment. He has further submitted that the panel is operative till the next panel is prepared. Till the date the next panel is not prepared. Therefore, the panel needs to be operated. The Commission be directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment as Labour Superintendent on unfilled vacancy. He has next submitted that in any view of the matter the vacancies advertised under Advertisement No. 4 of 2007 ought to be filled in by appointment of the empanelled candidates. Therefore also, the petitioner has a right to appointment pursuant to the said selection process.