IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3444 of 2007 1. Krishna Kinker Mishra, SON OF LATE ANANT LAL MISHRA, RESIDING AT MUHALLA- PURANIGANJ, P.S- KASIM BAZAR, P.O.& DISTRICT- MUNGER (BIHAR). 2. BIDHU SHEKHAR SINHA, SON OF LATE LALA JAGAT JYOTI PRASAD, RESIDING AT MUHALLA- CHUA BAG, P.S. KASIM BAZAR, P.O. & DISTRICT- MUNGER (BIHAR) 3. KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA, SON OF SHRI RAGHUNATH PRASAD, RESIDING AT MUHALLA- SADAR BAZAR, JAMALPUR, P.S. & P.O.- JAMALPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER (BIHAR) 4. SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF SRI TARKESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDING AT MUHALLA- RALSAR, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O.- BASUDEOPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. 5. MURARI KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE NAND KISHORE SINHA, C/O- SHRI BHAWANI PRASAD, RESIDING AT MADHOPUR, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O.- BASUDEOPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER (BIHAR). 6. RANJAN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF SRI BIMAL KUMAR SINHA, ADVOCATE, RESIDING OF BELAN BAZAR, BENGALI TOLA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- MUNGER- 811201:---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 3. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MUNGER. 4. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAGARIA. 5. YUSUF ALAM, CLERK, MUNGER JUDGESHIP, MUNGER. 6. BINAY KUMAR, CLERK, MUNGER JUDGESHIP, MUNGER. 7. ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR, CLERK, MUNGER, JUDGESHIP, MUNGER :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioners :- M/S Manik Ved Sen & Shantanu Kumar, Advocates For the State :- Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G.-11. For the High Court :- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate. Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate. ======== 2. 15.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the High Court. 2. Petitioners were applicant for appointment on the post of Clerk in the judgeship of Munger pursuant to Advertisement dated 15.4.1988. After conducting the selection process panel was published in the year 1990. Petitioners were included in the wait- list but could not be appointed. They challenged the 2 selection process by filing C.W.J.C.No. 4486 of 1991 which was permitted to be withdrawn under orders dated 19.4.1993, Annexure-7. Later petitioners sought review of the order dated 19.4.1993 by filing Civil Review No. 84 of 1993 which was dismissed under orders dated 15.7.1993, Annexure-10. Against the order dated 15.7.1993 dismissing the Review Petition petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed. Later review was also filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking the review of the order dismissing the S.L.P. which was also dismissed. The second round of litigation commenced when the petitioners challenged the appointment of Binoy Kumar made from the wait- list under orders dated 4th January, 1995 and of Yusuf Alam from select-list under order dated 13th July, 1990 by filing C.W.J.C.No. 12436 of 1996. In the said writ case petitioners also prayed for direction to the respondent authorities of the High Court and the Judgeship of Munger to appoint the petitioners as their name is appearing in wait-list. The prayer of the petitioners seeking appointment on the basis of their position in the wait-list was rejected by this Court under orders dated 10.9.1997, Annexure-16. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the petitioners to represent before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, highlighting the illegality made in appointment of Binoy Kumar and Yusuf Alam. In the light of the 3 liberty granted under order dated 10.9.1997, the petitioners filed representation dated 16.10.1997, Annexure-17. Representation dated 16.10.1997 was placed for consideration of the Acting Chief Justice under notes of the Registrar General dated 26.11.1999 placing on record the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 18th November, 1994, whereunder other similar request was rejected by the Standing Committee. In the light of the minutes of the Standing Committee, the Acting Chief Justice rejected the representation of the petitioners dated 16.10.1997 under minutes dated 28.11.1999. The minutes of the Acting Chief Justice was not communicated to the petitioners and they approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No. 2697 of 2005 praying, inter alia, to direct the High Court to consider their representation dated 16.10.1997. During hearing of C.W.J.C.No. 2697 of 2005 this Court was informed by the counsel for the High Court that the representation of the petitioners dated 16.10.1997, Annexure-17 to the said writ petition has already been disposed of, whereafter this Court directed the authorities of the High Court to serve on the petitioners the copy of the rejection order along with the minutes of the Acting Chief Justice. In compliance of the direction of this Court the minutes of the Acting Chief Justice rejecting the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 12.12.2006 was served on the petitioners 4 under letter dated 13th December, 2006 of the Registrar (Administration). By filing the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the letter dated 13th December, 2006 of the Registrar (Administration) of this Court as also the minutes of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 28.11.1999. The letter of the Registrar (Administration) dated 13th December, 2006 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-18A. Minutes of the Acting Chief Justice along with the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 18th November, 1994 has been annexed as Annexure-19 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on 19th March, 2007. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that perusal of the letter of the Registrar (Administration) dated 13th December, 2006, Annexure-18A and minutes of the Acting Chief Justice dated 28.11.1999, Annexure-19 would indicate that the same does not contain any reason for rejecting the request of the petitioners to cancel the appointment of Binoy Kumar and Yusuf Alam. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that minutes bereft of reasons is fit to be set aside by this Court and direction is required to be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners from the wait-list of 1990 as petitioners were above Binoy Kumar in the wait-list who was appointed from the wait-list under orders dated 4th January, 1995. 5 4. By filing counter affidavit the High Court has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners for appointment was rejected under orders dated 10.09.1997 by observing as follows :- “In this case, the advertisement for appointment to the post of Clerks (Assistants) in the then unified Judgeship of Munger was published on 15th of April, 1988. The panel was prepared on 13th of July, 1990. 16th of July, 1990 and most of the appointments were made in between 1990-91. The petitioners earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 4486 of 1991, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 19th of April, 1993, as it was reported that there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioners. As the panel lost its force in the year 1991 and this Court did not choose to allow the relief in favour of the petitioners for their appointment, I am not inclined to pass order for appointment of the petitioners in pursuance of the said advertisement of the year 1988.” 5. Aforequoted observation of this Court having already been affirmed by the Division Bench as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 5878 of 2000, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction for appointment of the petitioners. 6. As regards the illegality in the appointment 6 of Binoy Kumar it was submitted that petitioners secured lesser marks than Binoy Kumar and was placed below Binoy Kumar in wait-list, as such, petitioners could not have been appointed in place of Binoy Kumar. Reference in this connection is made to the statement made in paragraph-19 of the counter affidavit. 7. As regards Yusuf Alam it was submitted that he was included in the select-list itself and belongs to the category of Most Backward Class and in consideration of such fact he was appointed soon after the panel was published in the year 1990 vide order dated 13th July, 1990. Reference in this connection is made to the statement made in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit. 8. Appreciating the aforesaid stand the Acting Chief Justice rejected the representation of the petitioners under minutes dated 28.11.1999. I do not see any illegality in the minutes of the Acting Chief Justice rejecting the representation of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)