Dismissed

Rajan Kumar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Aug 2010CWJC/708/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of non-appointment despite the petitioner being the second on the panel. The court held that mere em panelment does not create a right to appointment, especially where the entire selection process was vitiated by leakage and irregularities.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed holding that the petitioner has no right to appointment as the selection process was vitiated.

Rajan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CWJC No.708 of 2010

¶3

RAJAN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BALBHADRA PRASAD SINGH R/O RATAULI, P.S.PIPRA,DISTT-SUPAUL

¶4

Versus

¶5

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA

¶6

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE BIHAR, PATNA CUM AGRICULTURE , PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR P.P.M.CUM-NODEL OFFICER "AATMA', BIHAR,PATNA

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KOSHI DIVISION , SAHARSA 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR ,AGRICULTURE KOSI DIVISION , SAHARSA

¶8

THE D.M. CUM-CHAIRMAN 'AATMA', SUPAUL

¶9

THE SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER-CUM-PROJECT DIRECTOR 'AATMA', SUPAUL

¶10

¶11

17.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶12

and the State.

¶13

Advertisement No. 2 /2007-08 was published inviting applications for appointment on the post of Stenographer, Accountant, Computer Operator and Orderly-cum-Chowkidar. On completion of the selection process a panel was prepared in which one Sumit Kumar Suman was placed at serial no. 1 of the panel for the post of Accountant and the petitioner was at serial no. 2.

¶14

The petitioner questioned the placement of the other candidate at serial no. 1, in C.W.J.C. No. 13394 of 2009 on the ground that he did not possess the basic condition of eligibility. This Court noticed that there was already an enquiry report and directed

¶15

¶16

appropriate action to be taken in accordance therewith. A fresh order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul on 5.1.2010 which is presently assailed.

¶17

Learned counsel submits that no sooner that the person at serial no. 1 of the panel was found to be disqualified for lacking essential eligibility condition, the petitioner was the next eligible candidate to be appointed.

¶18

Counsel for the State from the impugned order points out that a common advertisement was published for four posts and a common selection process hold. He invites the attention of the Court to Paragraph-4 of the impugned order to submit that the irregularity in the selection process was not confined to the wrong empanelment of the said Sumit Kumar Suman at serial no. 1 for the post of Accountant. In fact, the entire selection process was vitiated in view of the leakage of question papers and other irregularities leading to a decision much earlier on 5.5.2008 reiterated on 27.6.2008 to annul the entire selection process. It is submitted from the statements made in the counter affidavit that no appointment whatsoever has been made on any of the four posts in pursuance of Advertisement No.

¶19

¶20

2/2007-08.

¶21

Mere empanelment creates no right to appointment. If the respondents are satisfied that their have been great irregularities in the process of selection vitiating the entire process for all the four posts and have passed appropriate orders upon materials on record to that effect with reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference.

¶22

There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

P. Kumar

¶24

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Rajan Kumar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Kumar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Kumar Pandey and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Upendra Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mamta Rani Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Central Council of Indian Medi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Punam Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rizwana Pravin Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.