IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.393 of 2010 MADHUMATI KUMARI, D/O SHRI DHARMRAJ RAM, R/O QUARTER NO. 113 TYPE-1 POST & TELEGRAPH COLONY, KIDWAIPURI, PATNA............................................PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA 800014, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. 4. DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA 800014. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION), INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA...............................RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER:- MR. MANISH ,ADVOCATE. F0R IGIMS: - MR. LALIT KISHORE, SR. ADVOCATE MR. SUNIL KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE: - MR.RAJANI KANT MISHRA AC TO G.P. X ----------- 03 06.12.2010 Claim of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura at Patna is based on a basic premise that her name figures at wait list no. 1 for the exercise of selection of Sister Grade-2 pursuant to advertisement issued on 19.12.2007. Petitioner contends that final list does talk in terms of offering the post to wait listed candidates in case the selected candidates failed to join within the date and time or failed to produce the original required certificates. This fact is borne out from Annexure-13 of the writ application. Contention is that one person did not join out of the five selected persons, therefore, right had accrued in her favour. Since the respondents did not respond to her request for appointment, a writ has been filed. The stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that even though Annexure-13 did indicate such a situation but the fact 2 stands that there was no wait list drawn up and it is wrong to say that the petitioner was wait list no. 1. Merely because the roll number of petitioner figures at 6th position which is the list of candidates invited for interview, it does not mean that the petitioner held the 6th position as it was not the final result. It would was dependant upon the written examination plus their performance in the interview. It is, however, the stand of the respondents that they have now advertised the vacancy caused by the back log of unfilled seats along with the current vacancy which would be evident from the advertisement dated 2nd of September, 2010 as has been annexed as Annexure-B in reply to the rejoinder. In absence of any clear material and evidence to show that there was a wait list and that the petitioner occupied wait list no. 1 position after the interview or when the panel was prepared, the assertion made by the petitioner is more of her guess work or a premise not borne out from any independent material. This Court, therefore, has difficulty in giving a direction for appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2007. Even otherwise a large number of vacancies have now been notified on 2nd of September, 2010. This Court does not find any impediment in the way of the petitioner to apply in response to the said advertisement if she is still interested in joining the organization even at this stage. In the above stated circumstance this Court is not inclined to issue a direction in favour of the petitioner for appointment against so- 3 called vacancy caused by non-joining. This writ application is dismissed but the same will not come in the way of the petitioner if she otherwise fulfils the requirements of the advertisement. Shahzad (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)