ONKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sergeant pursuant to Advertisement No. 11/82.

(2.) Advertisement No. 11/82 was published by the Subordinate Selection Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, in the daily newspaper Pradeep dated 6th of February 1982 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police/Sergeant and equivalent post. The petitioner filed application for appointment on the post of Sergeant. He appeared in the physical test and his name was included in the list, of successful candidates. Admit card containing Roll No. 91/1708 was issued to the petitioner to appear in the written test. He appeared in the written test under the supervision of the Board. The result of the successful candidates was published in the year 1984, his roll number was not shown in the list of successful candidates. On 2.7.1985 another list of successful candidates was published for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police/Sergeant and equivalent post but his name was not mentioned in the list. The petitioner obtained cross list and found that he had secured 167 marks. He applied for individual marks-sheet which was supplied and he came to know that he had been provided with marks as shown in the cross list excluding that of Hindi in which he had secured minimum qualifying marks of 30, Annexure-3. From inquiry he learnt that the candidates securing lower marks than the petitioner, namely, Pandey Ajay Kumar and Surya Kumar Singh, who secured 165 and 1'66 marks respectively, have been offered appointment to the post of Sergeant pursuant to the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8186/89 and C.W.J.C. No. 580/87. The petitioner filed representation before respondent No. 3 but nothing was done. One Binod Kumar filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. 8461/93, which was disposed of on 20.12.1993 with a direction to appoint him and he was appointed. Similarly, Bimlendu Kumar Yadav filed C.W.J.C. No. 9124/89 and he was appointed. One Krishna Kumar Srivastava along with four others filed C.W.J.C. No. 6551/92 which was disposed of directing to consider their claim for appointment and if the authorities refuse the claim then they would have to communicate the reason to the petitioners. The petitioner also filed representation before respondent No. 3 on 18.2.2000 but nothing was done. Thus, he had approached this Court for issue of direction as indicated above.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. The affidavit was sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department wherein statement has been made that all vacancies against Advertisement No. 11 of 1982 have been filed up on the basis of recommendation of the Board. There is no vacancy against the aforesaid advertisement C.W.J.C. No. 1178/92 was filed seeking relief for appointment which was heard along with C.W.J.C. Nos. 1272/92, 13296/93 and 395/95 and disposed of on 10.8.2000 stating therein that the Court refrains to pass any specific order in favour of one or other petitioner as 18 years have passed after advertisement and about 15 to 16 years have passed after publication of list of successful candidates. However, in the interest of justice remitted the matter to the respondents with liberty to petitioner to file individual application before the Secretary, Home (Police) Department. If it is found that no post as advertised pursuant to the advertisement No. 11/82 is vacant the authority will reject the claim for appointment. In compliance of the said order representations filed have been rejected as no vacancy was available against the said advertisement. Subsequently advertisement No. 4/85 was published by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board. However, one C.W.J.C. No. 3280/91 was filed which was disposed of on 5.1.1993. The Court disposed of the said writ petition stating that on the facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering all the contentions raised in this matter the Court is of the view that for all such vacancies which are to be filled up by a fresh advertisement and not from the panel prepared five or six years ago C.W.J.C. No. 7473/2000 was filed for appointment against advertisement No. 4/85 which was dismissed on 16.8.2000 stating that it is evident that advertisement No. 4/85 was issued in the year 1985 and fresh panel was prepared in 1998. Subsequently pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3104/86 the list of next successful candidates was published on 26.3.1991. In the circumstances the panel having lost its force, the Court was not inclined to direct the appointment to be made from the dead panel. C.W.J.C. No. 13744/ 2003 was filed for appointment against the advertisement No. 4/85 which was also dismissed. In nutshell the stand in the counter affidavit is that there is no vacancy against the advertisement No. 11/82 and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner.