IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.798 of 2009 Shetnath Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18002 of 2010 Virendra Kumar Versus The Bihar Vidhan Sabha,Patna & ---------------------------------- 5. 03.01.2012 The office points out that there is discrepancy between the final order as pronounced and signed and the office copy. It appears that there has been some inadvertent error/omission at the time of saving the corrections in the order before pronouncement. The order dated 22.7.2011 at serial no. 4 in original and signed is clarified to be the correct order which is directed to be reproduced at serial no. 5 of the order sheet. “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Bihar Legislative Assembly in both the writ applications. An advertisement was published on 31.10.2002 for appointment of Reporters. The petitioner in the former writ application was at serial 3 of the merit list while the latter was at serial 2. Alleging irregularities in the selection process the latter came to this Court in CWJC No. 13948 of 2002 which declined interference. LPA No. 1170 of 2005 preferred against the same arrived at the finding that the merit positioning the panel had been violated. The appointment of persons at serial 11 & 12 of the merit panel were set aside. The Division Bench did not interfere with the appointment of the person at serial 5 of the merit panel holding that he appeared to be more proficient in Hindi 2 dictation and transcription, the normal language used in the Assembly. Directions were given to complete the process of selection in accordance with law. The order attained finality. MJC No. 794 of 2008 was filed by the latter for review and/or modification of the order of the appellate Court which confined its observations to appointment of English Reporters. The Court clarified that consideration shall not be limited to „English Reporters‟ but to „Reporters‟ in general. MJC No. 2412 of 2008 was thereafter filed by the latter alleging non compliance of the Court‟s order. The Court declined interference holding that he had fared well in English but not in Hindi and which is the factual position with regard to the former writ petitioner also. The claim for appointment as English Reporter was rejected by the Division Bench observing that it was a matter to be determined by the authorities themselves. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that no justification is forthcoming for not filling up the post of Reporters as advertised. Counsel for the Assembly submits that all appointments between 2000 to 2005 have been referred to the Department of Vigilance with regard to the legality of the selections. That may have been an explanation if the person at serial 5 of the merit panel was also removed questioning his selection. That is not the case of the respondents. That brings to the fore the question of appointment to the post of Reporters. A mere vacancy shall not create a right by virtue of empanelment to demand an appointment by filling up of an advertised vacancy. Equally, there can be no denial for such appointment except for justified and cogent reasons. No explanation on that aspect is forthcoming from the respondents. 3 The Division bench initially directed consideration for appointment as English Reporter. It was subsequently clarified to mean reporters in general. Ultimately the Court left it to the authorities themselves to decide (on English/Hindi Reporters) the issue. These orders have attained finality. Judicial discipline inhibits the Court from traveling beyond the boundaries of the Division Bench order. Both the writ applications stand dismissed.” Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)