Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2006 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3381 of 2000 on 11th August, 2005) THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ---------(Appellant) Versus BRAJ KISHORE SINGH -----------------(Respondents) ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Arup Kr. Chongdar, J.C. to AAG-2. For the Respondent : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha & Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. From the Judgment and Order rendered by this Court on 11th May, 1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 6758 of 1996, it appears that in the said writ petition, the respondent-petitioner contended that his case for appointment has not been considered in an appropriate manner. In the said writ petition, as appears from the said Judgment and Order of this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. In paragraph-9 of the said counter affidavit, it was stated that in the next meeting of the Establishment Committee, the case of the petitioner-respondent will be 2 considered for appointment after giving him due relaxation of age and in case, the petitioner is found otherwise fit, he will be given appointment. The said writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner-respondent in the next meeting of the District Establishment Committee. The Court expected, as recorded in the order, that the meeting of the District Establishment Committee will take place during the next four months in which a final decision in so far as the petitioner-respondent is concerned will be taken. The Court made it further clear that in case the decision goes against the petitioner-respondent, the Establishment Committee or the competent authority will pass a speaking order giving reasons. Subsequently, the Establishment Committee took a decision on 27th September, 1997 and thereby purported to hold out that there is no special equity in favour of the petitioner-respondent for granting him age relaxation and that he cannot be appointed inasmuch as in view of his crossing the age bar, petitioner-respondent was not in the panels since 1993. The order dated 27th September, 1997 in no uncertain terms records that the petitioner was empanelled 3 in the year 1982. Petitioner challenged the said decision of the Establishment Committee dated 27th September, 1997 by filing a subsequent writ petition which having been allowed by the Judgment and Order under appeal, the appellant-State is before us. In the writ petition, it was stated by the petitioner, but not controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the State, that in the year 1982 petitioner was interviewed for recruitment to a Class-IV post as was available in the District of Samastipur. If the performance of the petitioner at that interview was ultimately decided on 27th September, 1997, having regard to the admitted fact that in 1982 the petitioner was well within the age, question of relaxation of age did not arise. The appellant purports to contend that since the writ petitioner-respondent was not in the panels since after 1983, he was not competent to be appointed. If that be so, question of considering the case of the appellant as late as in 1996 did not, nor could at all, arise and accordingly, in the first ground of litigation, i.e. in C.W.J.C. No. 6758 of 1996, 4 the State ought to have had stated so in its counter affidavit instead of saying that the Establishment Committee will consider the case of the petitioner-respondent. For the reasons as above and having regard to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which the present appeal has been preferred, i.e. reconsideration of the case of the petitioner-respondent, we find no scope of interference and accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, 19th August, 2008 S.B.P./NAFR (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)