IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7189 of 2008 Smt.Pavitra Kumari, wife of Dr. Mohan Singh, resident of M.I.G-302, Lohiya Nagar, Police Station-Kankarbagh in the town and district of Patna …………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Central Social Welfare Board through its Chairperson, Samaj Kalyan Bhavan, B-12, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 5. Dr. (Prof.) Sita Sinha, wife of not known to the petitioner, presently working as lecturer in Political Science, S.M.D. College, Punpun, District-Patna ………………….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner:- M/S Vind Keshari Singh, Sr. Advocate & Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: M/S Kumar Alok, SC-19 & Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to SC 19 For Resp. Board: Mr. Anand Mohan Verma, Advocate. ------------- 6. 28.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for the State and for the Central Social Welfare Board. Although a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 but no one appears on her behalf. The petitioner has come to this Court for a direction upon the respondents to issue necessary notification for the constitution of the Bihar State Social Welfare Board for which the petitioner claims to have been duly selected for the post of Chairperson. The name of the petitioner along with two other candidates was recommended by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department to the Chairperson, Central Social Welfare Board for the reconstitution of the Bihar State Social Welfare Advisory Board by letter dated 31.7.2006. By its letter dated 18.10.2006 the State 2 Government was informed about the concurrence of the Central Board for appointment of the petitioner as Chairperson of the Bihar State Social Welfare Board for three years along with a list of 15 Central Social Welfare Board members approved by the Central Board for their nomination in the Bihar State Social Welfare Board and a request was made to issue a notification of Board members along with Chairperson so that it can be reconstituted at the earliest. Thereafter the petitioner claims that no action was taken by the State Government for issuing notification and accordingly, she has approached this Court by filing the writ application. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, the stand taken is that the writ application is not maintainable as the petitioner has got no legal right for a direction to be appointed as Chairperson of the Bihar State Social Welfare Board. It is pointed out that the Central Social Welfare Board has been incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act with its own byelaws and Articles of Association and under Article 9 there is provision to create the State Social Welfare Advisory Board in consultation with the concerned State Government in each and every State. It is stated that the said Board is neither the creation of the State Government nor its agency and its function is only to assist the Central Social Welfare Board in implementation of its scheme. It is also stated that the Board has no independent source of income and the same was being run with the fund provided by the State Government and the Central Board. However, on the failure of the 3 State Board to achieve its goal, the State Government itself had withdrawn its assistance to the said welfare Board with effect from 1.4.2003. Subsequently, a request was made by the Chairman, Central Board for revival of the said Board. At that stage, the panel of three names was sent but ultimately the State Government did not find the name approved by the Central Board acceptable and again a panel of two names was sent on 8.2.2008 and the recommendation of the Central Board for the post of Chairperson and 13 other members is under consideration of the State Government in view of the directions given to the State Board which may take time. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.5, Dr. Sita Sinha, the stand taken is that the earlier recommendation in favour of the petitioner was not found acceptable by the State Government and subsequently a fresh panel was sent and thereafter the name of the respondent no. 5 was approved by the Central Board for the post of Chairperson of the State Board by letter dated 10.4.2008 which is under consideration of the State Government. It is stated that the news regarding the selection of respondent no. 5 was also published in various newspapers, copies of which have been annexed but since there is no challenge to the fresh recommendation by the petitioner, therefore, the writ application itself has become infructuous and cannot be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the State-respondents is arbitrary and whimsical in the present matter and shows their mala fide intention towards the 4 petitioner in order to favour respondent no.5. It is also submitted that once the recommendation was made by the State Government and accepted by the Central Board, then the respondent-authorities ought to have constituted the Board as per the approval of the Central Board. In this regard, he refers to Rule (v) (b) of the Rules governing composition and function of State Social Welfare Advisory Board which provides for sending by the State Government a panel of three names along with bio-data for the concurrence of the Central Board for the Chairperson. It is submitted by learned counsel that the subsequent recommendation in favour of respondent No. 5 is not in accordance with the said Rules and therefore, the concurrence of the Central Board for such recommendation is illegal and invalid. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the State Board itself is in a limbo after the decision was taken by the State Government in the year 2003 to withdraw the assistance from the State Social Welfare Board and only on account of the repeated persuasion by the Central Social Welfare Board the earlier recommendation had been sent but subsequently the same was not found acceptable by the State Government and another panel of two names was sent. It is submitted that the State Government has yet to take a final view in the matter as to whether the State Board should be reconstituted as also on the subsequent recommendation of the name of respondent no. 5 as Chairperson. In such circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel that no mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner particularly when the decision of the State 5 Government not to accept the earlier recommendation of her name is not under challenge and subsequently there is a recommendation by the State Government and concurrence by the Central Board of the name of respondent no. 5 for which decision is yet to be taken by the State Government. It is submitted that the writ application is not at all maintainable in the above facts and circumstance and has, as a matter of fact, become infructuous. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find that any mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner in the present matter. It is evident that no legal right had arisen in favour of the petitioner by mere recommendation of her name in the panel and its concurrence by the Central Board. There is no vested right in such matters in a person whose name is recommended in a panel. More so when in the present matter, the State Government itself had not taken a final decision as to whether the Board which had ceased to function from the year 2003 should be reconstituted at the time when the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made. Subsequently, the second panel has been recommended and the name of respondent no. 5 has been approved by the Chairman of the Central Board and thus the earlier recommendation has ceased to exist. In the said circumstances, there is absolutely no legal right in the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus as the earlier recommendation and the concurrence of the Central Board in her favour is not in existence. In view of the above circumstances, this Court does not 6 find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)