SHAMBHU PRASAD BAITHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Harendra Prasad, Advocate on record and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned GP-26, for the State

(2.) This is a second round litigation for the petitioners to seek appointment under an advertisement which was published more than 16 years back on 14.6.2001. The advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the writ petition and invites application for appointment against 158 Class IV post from those possessed with educational qualification of Class VIII and having knowledge of cycling. The advertisement also gives preference to those who have served the State Government. The four petitioners herein were applicants to the post. A panel was prepared which is at Annexure 3 and in which the name of these four petitioners does appear at serial nos. 186, 72, 178 and 66 respectively. When despite preparation of panel steps were not taken by the respondent authorities in the district of Gopalganj in giving effect thereto, this led to filing of several writ petitions which were heard analogous alongwith C.W.J.C.No. 10444/2005 (Shankar Singhors. Vs. the State of Biharors.). The petitioners also joined the contest being a party to C.W.J.C.No. 13122/2005 wherein their names appear as petitioners no. 29, 22, 26 and 21 respectively. The panel at Annexure 3 herein was enclosed as Annexure 5 to the said writ petition and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after taking notice of the contentions advanced, disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

(3.) The State filed a Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A.No. 1274/2009 but without success and thus, process started in tune with the directions of the Writ Court. It is under the orders passed on the writ petition at Annexure 6 as well as on the contempt applications which followed them that the District Selection Committee at Gopalganj initiated the process and paragraph 6 of the minutes of the meeting held on 20.4.2015, a copy of which is at Annexure 1 to the writ petition, would confirm that in between the period, the vacancies had increased from 158 to 284. Despite this position where vacancies had increased and even though the advertisement at Annexure 1 notified 158 vacancies but for the reasons best known to the respondents, a panel was prepared only of 110 applicants, a copy of which is at Annexure 4 and which did not include the petitioners, rather included only those who had served the Government at some time or the other.