IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1428 of 2010 1. Kailash Prasad Sahu S/O Sita Ram Sah R/O Vill &P.O.Chichari Kanungo,P.S. Raj Nagar, Distt-Madhubani Versus 1. The High Court Of Judicature At Patna Through The Registrar General 2. The Registrar General , Patna High Court Patna 3. The District Judge Darbhanga 3/ 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of peon in the Darbhanga Judgeship in response to an advertisement dated 10.2.2006. His grievance is that he was never intimated to appear at any interview and therefore has been denied the right to consideration. The Court has also considered the allegations in the writ petition with regard to the alleged irregularities in the selection process. Suffice it to state that they are very generalized in nature and appear to be an attempt to overcome the difficulty in not having been able to participate in the selection process. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit also annexing an extract of the dispatch register demonstrating issuance of an admit card to the petitioner. The selection process was completed and the merit panel finalized on 14.3.2008. Prudence dictated 2 that if the petitioner was an applicant for a secure job in a competitive market, he should have been more agile and kept track of developments. His first query comes on 20.12.2009, more than one year later. The normal life of a panel is for one year only. It is unfortunate that the communication to him for the interview got misplaced in transit and never reached in. But, even thereafter he must bear a part of the blame for his own indolence also. In AIR 1963 S.C. 822 (Radha Kishan vs. State of U.P.) it has been observed at paragraph-9 that; “9….It is common experience that delivery of postal articles is now and again delayed for a considerable length of time - may be through accident or through the negligence of the postal employees….” Considering the aspect of postal delay and a claim on that basis raised after one year, the life of the panel, it has been held in 2006 12 SCC 561 (State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra) at paragraph-9 as follows:- “9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.” 3 “14. It may be true that the appointment letter was sent by ordinary post but even in relation thereto a statutory presumption arises. It is also well known that postal delay by itself may not be a ground to take a sympathetic view.” If the respondents publish any advertisement and the petitioner applies in response to the same, he has to be considered in accordance with law on its own merits and his earlier non-participation cannot be to his prejudice. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)