Petitioner sought appointment based on a 1999 panel. Court held designation contrary to law and panel expired. Writ disposed; petitioner to apply via future advertisement.
Writ application disposed; petitioner to apply via future compliant advertisement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9324 of 2002
RAGHUBANS DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
The claim of the petitioner is for appointment on a Class IV post in pursuance of his working in the Rohtas Collectorate since 1991 as an “Ummidwar Anuseak”. The designation itself IS indicative of the nature of the appointment as being contrary to law. In any event of the matter no panel can have a life beyond
one year. The relief sought is based upon a panel of 1999 in s writ petition filed in 2002. Any panel to be prepared for appointment has to be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and proper selection thereafter.
If the respondents publish any advertisement and the petitioner applies in response to the same, quite naturally his case is also required tobe considered in accordance with law.
The writ application stands disposed.
Snkumar/-
(Navin Sinha,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim for appointment based on an expired 1999 panel without valid open advertisement warrants granting of relief.
Raghubans Dubey
The State of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court