IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1070 of 2009 Satyendra Kumar Rai . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitoner:- Mr. Mithlesh Prasad Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shambhu Nath, Adv. --------- 2. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. His name figured in the waiting list. Notices were issued in the newspaper inviting those in the waiting list to appear at the specified date. Vacancies for which candidates did not respond were carried forward and appointment made from the consequent waiting list. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that contrary to the departmental circular for issuance of registered notice to the candidates in the waiting list, the respondents resorted to newspaper publication in the English daily “Times of India” only. Contrary to procedure it was not published in any Hindi Daily. The contention in the counter affidavit that it was published in the Hindi Daily Prabhat Khabar was contrary to their own pleading of the decision for publication in the Hindi 2 Daily Jagran. The fact that the petitioner may not have seen the paper publication is therefore irrelevant as the respondents can be said to have acted contrary to law. If the respondents have not followed their own guidelines the petitioner cannot be denied consideration. The last submission is that if vacancies under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 are still available and there is no person better suited than the petitioner in the waiting list, his case may be considered. Counsel for the State submits that all of the vacancies have been filled up. The respondents gave more than adequate opportunity to the petitioner. If he did not avail it in time he cannot now make a grievance of the same. The only question to be considered by the Court is the effect of the failure of the respondents to send a registered notice to the petitioner as alleged by him and the publication made in the Prabhat Khabar. A departmental circular is not a statutory rule. If instead of sending notice by registered post to the petitioner the respondents on two occasions published the notice in the newspaper was their action so unreasonable and arbitrary for this Court to hold that the petitioner 3 has been prejudiced thereby. The answer can only be that the conduct of the respondents was extremely reasonable. The petitioner was not the only candidate in the waiting list. If the respondents resorted to the procedure of paper publication, the Court finds no error with it to arrive at a finding of arbitrariness. While considering an administrative action, the Court shall test it by the standard of reasonableness that may be applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. If there was only one candidate or a couple of candidates only different considerations may apply. But if the candidates were large in number no fault can be found with a decision for a paper publication. The petitioner in his writ application acknowledges publication but pleads that he did not have access to newspapers. In a competitive world where he was an applicant for a post, his name was in the waiting list, it was for him to have been more cautious about his rights and interests by keeping track of developments including newspaper publication. If he missed the bus because of his own inefficiency and the posts have been filled up as was submitted on behalf of the 4 State, it is not possible for this Court to make any observations for consideration of his case and the matter has necessarily to be left to the respondents. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)