AVINASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT; ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT; DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT; UNDER SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT; BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION VETER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So long as there are litigants and lawyers, they will never allow some issues to die down. The Court has reason to observe as above by looking at the facts of the present case. Way back on 17.12.2004, an Advertisement No.1004 was published inviting applications for filling up the post of Enforcement Sub Inspector under the Transport Department. The process carried on from 2004 till 2012. The post, it seems, is rather lucrative and very sought after because one to many rounds of litigations were brought before the High Court and the final selection and appointment dragged on from year to year. It is only after a decisive declaration and direction issued after many rounds of litigations at the level of the Division Bench that the process of appointment could be completed.

(2.) The Staff Selection Commission was saddled with the responsibility of carrying out the obligation of selection and they did so and made recommendations on 13.2.2013. It seems that thereafter due to non-joining or other reasons certain vacancies have emerged. Petitioner is one of the candidate, who claims that he was in the list of selected candidates and had identical marks with those who had been appointed and therefore, he had a legitimate expectation that the vacancies subsisting should be filled up by making a fresh recommendation in his favour. He even goes to the extent of saying that for extraneous reasons the Staff Selection Commission is not making recommendation despite a requisition having been sent by the State Government to the Secretary of the Commission. Keeping the above controversy in mind, the Court directed both the Staff Selection Commission and the State to file counter affidavit. From the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Staff Selection Commission and the State a totally different picture emerges as to the facts as well. The reason, which the petitioner is talking about, is Annexure-C and dated 18.2.2014, which has been annexed with the counter affidavit of respondent no.1 to 5. Not only the Court has gone through that communication but even the counsel for the Staff Selection Commission has meticulously placed the contents of that communication and submits that the extra emphasis being placed by the petitioner showing vacancy and requisition is nothing but a figment of imagination of the petitioner and a desperate bid to clamour on to the vacancies which does not relate to him. The subject and object of the communication contained in Annexure- C has been issued almost a year after the recommendation had been made by the Staff Selection Commission and it talks about future vacancies as well and how they are required to be filled up keeping in mind the proposed amendment which are in the pipeline for the said post.

(3.) The stand of the State is not at variance with the Staff Selection Commission.