IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1246 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3127 of 2005 ====================================================== 1. Satendra Ram, S/O Sri Rameshwar Ram, R/O Ambedkar Nagar, Shahpur, P.S.-Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad. 2. Arjun Rajak, Son of Sri Tetar Rajak, R/o Naga Bigha, P.S.- Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad . 3. Purshotam Kumar Singh @ Purshotam Singh, S/o Sri Brij Bihari Singh, R/o Reriya, P.S.- Chenari, District-Rohtas. 4. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Late Yamuna Singh, R/o Vill. Arthua, P.S.- Kasma, District- Aurangabad. 5. Binay Kumar Singh son of Late Jamuna Singh, Resident of Village- Bibeepur, P.S. Rafiganj and District-Aurangabad. 6. Ajay Kumar son of Late Sachidanand Sinha Resident of Mohalla-Dr. Dharndhar Road, Baratpur, at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad (Interveners) …. …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Aurangabad. 4. The Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Aurangabad. 5. Pappu Kumar, S/o Deena Nath Pathak,R/O Road No.10, Behind of Veterinary College Compound, P.S. Shekhpura, at and District-Patna. 6. Amar Kumar, S/o Rajnandan Prasad, R/o Khaprail Pose No.8, P.S.-Kotwali, at and District-Patna. 7. Neeraj Kumar, Son of Sri Balgovind Prasad, at present Civil Court Compound at PS and District-Aurangabad. 8. Dhanjee Kumar, S/o Rama Shankar Paswan, R/o Nagabigha, Patel Nagar, at and P.S.-Aurangabad. 9. Surendra Pratap Singh, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. Patna High Court LPA No.1246 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 2 / 4 2 10. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. 11. Babita Kumari, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 12. Nripendra Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 13. Sunil Prasad, Son of Kapildeo Ram, Nazir, posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 14. Shashi Kumar Shashi, Son of Baleshwar Prasad, posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 15. Sachendra Kumar Roy, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. 16. Vijay Singh, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 17. Mukesh Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 18. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. 19. Sulekha Kumari, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 20. Rajesh Kumar Singh, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 21. Md. Ibid Hussain, S/o Maish Hussain Ansari, Resident of Village- Kharaul, District-Nawadah. 22. Ajay Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 23. Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Chandeshwar Prasad resident of Ram Krishna Lane behind of Sarala Sadan, Naya Tola, P.S. and District- Muzaffarpur. Patna High Court LPA No.1246 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 3 / 4 3 24. Sunil Chandra Pathak, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. 25. Sushil Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. 26. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District- Aurangabad. 27. Kaushal Kumar, Son of Vinod Kumar Ram, Resident of Village-Rampur, PS-Rajpur at present Umarpur Pethwari, PO-Manhari, PS-Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. 28. Krishna Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellants, at present posted in the office of the Respondent No.2 at, P.S. and District-Aurangabad. …. …. Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha- I, Advocate Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, AAG-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 19-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3127 of 2005, the writ petitioners and the applicants in Interlocutory Application Nos. 9297 of 2008 and 9298 of 2008 have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellants were daily wage class IV employees under the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. After regular Patna High Court LPA No.1246 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 4 / 4 4 selection procedure, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 were selected for appointment on Class IV post, whereas the appellants were not selected. Feeling aggrieved the appellant Nos.1 to 4 filed above C.W.J.C. No. 3127 of 2005. The appellant Nos. 5 and 6 intervened under the above referred Interlocutory Application. The appellants’ challenge to the appointment of the concerned respondents under the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is based mainly on two grounds that the experience of the appellants as daily wages Class IV employees was not considered and that the appointment of Sachendra Kumar Roy was mala fide. The learned single Judge has considered the allegations and mala fide and has rejected the same. No interference is warranted. As to the experience of the appellants there is nothing on the record to suggest that the experience of the appellants was not taken into consideration by the interviewing committee. The grievance made by the appellants is imaginary. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)