IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.536 of 2006 AMARNATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra For the respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG –III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, JC to AAG - III P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 29th July, 2008 This is second round of litigation concerning the appellant’s claim for appointment as Driver. The first writ petition being CWJC. No.4001 of 2001 came to be disposed of on 11th August, 2004, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Driver under the department. Moreover, the petitioner was not appointed. The reason being non-availability of vacancy. He approached this court again by filing the writ petition being CWJC. No.15340 of 2004 praying therein that his case be considered against one existing vacant post. This writ petition has been dismissed on 27th June, 2006. 2. The operative order reads thus: “ In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition since no illegalities or irregularities have been committed by the Department in not selecting the petitioner in the first round and not considering his case when the second round of appointment was taken up in the year 2001. Since no vacancies remained of the time 2 of the earlier appointment process, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any claim to be appointed as a driver in terms of the order dated 11.8.2004 of this court. It is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that, as of today, there are four further vacancies for the post of driver. However, the recruitment has to be made through the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna. The petitioner, if he so chooses, may apply against the same as and when the same is advertised and his case shall be considered in accordance with law.” 3. The present appeal is from this order. 4. In paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the appeal, the following statement has been made: “That the statement made in para-1 of the memo of appeal is wrong and denied it is submitted that as stated in para-(xvii) of the brief History, this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 11.8.2004 in CWJC. No.4001 of 2001, has directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of the driver under the department. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court had not passed any interim stay order for appointment of driver. That from the list of result annexed at Annexure-B no any person was appointed and for two existing vacancies a fresh procedure was adopted and vide order dated 21.9.2001, two drivers were appointed. That it is also submitted that by the time the Hon’ble Court had disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner, the Karmchari Chayan Ayog became the competent authority to appoint drivers. That the application filed by the petitioner in the light of the order dated 11.8.2004 has been disposed of by the respondent vide departmental memo no.2531 dated 08.11.2004 by a reasoned order by the Secretary - cum - I.G. Registration.” 5. It would be, thus, seen that the Selection Committee selected six candidates for appointment against six posts of Driver. However, one of these posts was to be filled up by the scheduled tribe 3 candidate and since no candidate for the said category turned up, one vacancy was kept vacant. Obviously, the vacant post meant for scheduled tribe candidate could not have been filled up by the appellant. There was one more vacancy that occurred because of non-joining of one of the selectees. Both these posts were filled up by following fresh procedure. The selected candidates have not been impleaded by the appellant. 6. Consideration of the matter by the single judge in view of the aforesaid facts cannot be faulted. 7. Letters patent appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-