DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader No. 11 for the State.

(2.) The petitioners have questioned clause (4) of the empanelment order bearing Memo No. 806 dated 4.9.2015 of the District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in so far as it wrests a right of consideration of an empanelled candidate in case the office in which he has been posted as an Executive Assistant reports no vacancy.

(3.) The short submission made by Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once a candidate is empanelled for appointment as an Executive Assistant, it is not within his jurisdiction to ascertain whether or not there is any requirement in any office and it is for the District Magistrate to satisfy himself as to the existing vacancy before any posting order is issued for even where a candidate is selected for appointment, his right is taken away merely because the office to which he has been posted does not accept his joining on the excuse of absence of vacancy. According to learned counsel, the four petitioners herein having succeeded in the written examination held in 2012 for appointment as Executive Assistants, their names finds mentioned in the merit list at Annexure 4 with the name of petitioner No. 1 at serial No. 237, the petitioner No. 2 at serial No. 180, the petitioner No. 3 at serial No. 184 and petitioner No. 4 at serial No. 259.