IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1962 of 2008 YOGENDRA SAH, SON OF LATE HALDHAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALHADIH (MANDIR TOLA), P.S. BANGAOWN, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INDUSTRIES DIRECTOR, REGIONAL INDUSTRIES OFFICE, SAHARSA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, SAHARSA 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, NAZARAT, SAHARSA 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, SAHARSA. For the petitioner :- Mr. Jitendra Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ram Chandra Pd. Bharti, SC 14 Mr. Ajay Kumar, A.C to SC 14 ----------- 4 26.4.2010 The petitioner was appointed in the year 1973 at the Training-cum-Production Centre, Saharsa in the Industries Department on ad hoc basis as a peon. He was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 155/- for about six months. His services were extended vide Memo No. 5564 dated 3.5.1974 from 20.12.1973 to 28.2.1974. Thereafter the petitioner received no extension of his services by the Department of Industries. In the year 1974, the Government called certain names from the Employment Exchange for Class-IV retrenched employees. The petitioner’s name was not recommended nor did he appear in the said interview held by the Department and his name was not in the Rolls of the year 1995 and 1997, as in the year 1995 itself the petitioner had become over age. The writ petitioner claims that in 1998, a draft panel was prepared in which the petitioner’s name finds place at serial no. 160 and claims that on the basis of the draft panel prepared in the year 1998, he ought t o have been considered, be selected and appointed in the District Collectorate like other persons. 2 It may be noted here that the advertisement was of the year 1995-97 which came to be finalized in the year 2007 which was done in pursuance of an order passed in a writ application and M.J.C. No. 1001 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that as per the draft panel prepared in the year 1998, his name ought to have come in the final panel prepared in the year 2007 on the basis of which appointments have been made. The fact remains that the petitioner was already over age in the year 1995 and it has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that his name did not appear in the panel prepared in 1995 and 1997 and as such he could not be empanelled in the year 2007. In view of the fact that the petitioner was over age at the time of preparation of even the draft panel, the claim of the petitioner cannot be substantiated. This Court also finds that for whatever reason, there has been sufficient delay in preparation of the panel for the purpose of making appointment and there should be end to the life of panel and as such I am not inclined to pass a direction that the petitioner should be considered and his name should be included in the final panel so that he may be considered for appointment. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)