IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.609 of 2008 POONAM KUMARI @ POONAM MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 18th August, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The counsel for the appellant would contend that issuance of appointment order was a ministerial formality and must have followed as a matter of course once the appellant’s name found place in a select list. He would, thus, submit that the Single Judge was not right in concluding that the petitioner was empanelled only. We are unable to accept his submission. 3. The Single Judge observed in the order impugned thus: “Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner was merely empanelled. No appointment letter had been issued to her. The law stands settled that mere empanelment creates no right. Moreover, if the case of the petitioner be accepted, she was empanelled on 25.5.2005. At that time the appointments were contractual in nature for 11 months which came to an end on 25.4.2006 under the then existing Rules. After the expiry of the period of 11 months, the right of continuance was inchoate and was dependent on several fulfillment of circumstances for awarding of fresh contract for 11 months. This Court is not persuaded that a cause of action shall lie on such an inchoate right which may or may not have fructified. The petitioner has only herself to blame having approached this Court on 14.5.2007 after the new statutory Rules governing qualifications and procedures for appointment have come into force. The petitioner cannot have the benefit of the saving clause of Rule 20 as she was - 2 - admittedly not working on 1.7.2006 as a Shiksha Mitra to have acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak.” 4. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Single Judge. No right is created by empanelment in the select list. 5. Counsel, then, contents that another candidate namely Smt. Abhyanshu Mali has been given appointment vide order dated 25th June, 2007 and that the appellant is similarly situated. 6. We find no justifiable reason to accept the claim of the appellant on the basis of the order passed on 25th June, 2007 in the case of Smt. Abhyanshu Mali as there is nothing on record to show that Smt. Abhyanshu Mali was not working as Shiksha Mitra on or before 01.07.2006. 7. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/