IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1131 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10876 of 1996 With Interlocutory Application No. 5412 of 2011 ====================================================== Sayed Naqvi Imam, S/o Late Syed Majid Hussain, R/o Sangi Masjid, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vigilance Commissioner, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General, Vigilance, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Shri Arun Bhushan Prasad, Joint Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 13. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 10-08-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5412 of 2011: The delay of 11 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1131 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 10876 of 1996, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1131 of 2011 (2) dt.10-08-2011 2 The appellant, a Routine Clerk in the office of the State Cabinet Vigilance Commission, filed the above CWJC No. 10876 of 1996 under Article 226 of the Constitution for being absorbed in service as an Assistant and the consequential reliefs of seniority and payment of arrears of salary. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. The appellant was first appointed as an Assistant on 20th April 1978 on recommendation of the then Chairman of the State Cabinet Vigilance Commission. On resignation of the Chairman, the appellant’s services too was terminated. He was once again appointed in the State Cabinet Vigilance Commission as a Routine Clerk on recommendation of the Chairman. It is the claim of the appellant that he was qualified for the appointment as an Assistant and that the vacancy did exist in the cadre of Assistant, the appellant should, therefore, be absorbed as the Assistant. Evidently, the appellant was appointed on recommendation of the Chairman without following the due procedure. The Appellant willingly accepted the appointment as a Routine Clerk without demur. The appellant, therefore, now cannot be permitted to claim appointment as an Assistant. We see no merit in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)