IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1184 of 2010 1. RANJIT CHANDRA MISHRA S/0 LATE SITA RAM MISHRA, R/0 VILLAGE AND POST-DHOI, P.S. SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA 2. RAM BABU MANDAL S/0-RAMASHISH MANDAL, R/0 VILLAGE AND POST-DHOI, P.S. SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 3. ARVIND KUMAR S/O- KISHORI PRASAD RAI, R/O VILLAGE-DIVARI P.S. KAWARIYA, P.S. SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 4. USHA KUMARI W/O- ARUN KUMAR ‘AMAR’ R/O VILLAGE-DIWARI, P.O. KAWARIA, P.S. SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA...............PETITIONERS. ] Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA, DIVISION DARBHANGA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SADAR BLOCK, DARBHANGA. 5. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DHOI, VILLAGE AND POST-DHOI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DHOI, VILLAGE & P.O. DHOI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 7. RAJ KUMAR SAHNI S/O SRI RAM KHALAWAN SAHNI. 8. RAM NANDA N YADAV S/O-SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV. 9. SMT.NATAN KUMARI W/O- SRI ABNISH KUMAR SINGH @ ABNISH KUMAR. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-DEWARI, P.O. KAWARIYA, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 10. RAM KISHORE BHANDARI S/O- SRI SURAJ BHANDARI, R/O-SRI SURAJ BHANDARI, R/O- VILLAGE & P.O. DHOI P.S. SADAR DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 11. SMT. RITA KUMARI W/O- BINOD KUMAR BIMAL, R/O- VILLAGE MISRAULIA, P.S. DHOI, P.S. SADAR, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 12. SMT. SUMAN KUMARI MISHRA D/O- SRI ADITYA NATH MISHRA. 13. SMT. BABI DEVI W/O- MANOJ PASWAN, BOTH RESIDENT OFVILLAGE-DHOI, P.O. DHOI, P.S. SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA.......................... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6, 7, 8 & 10 as well as learned counsel for the State. Though notices had been served on other private respondents they have chosen not to appear. The issue relates back to selection of certain candidates and their appointment on the post of Panchayat Sikcha Mitra initiated in the year 2004, which has led to filing of the present writ application on behalf of these petitioners. In between there had been many rounds of litigations and decision making 2 at various levels which can also be briefly noted. One fact at the outset must be recorded that counsel for petitioner no. 4 categorically states that she is not seriously challenging the appointment of one Nutan Kumari in view of the fact that she had more marks than her. Therefore, the issue is confined to the other three petitioners. Contention of rest of the petitioners is that when the merit list was drawn up they had more marks than other selected candidates but despite the said fact they were not appointed and their claim was intentionally scuttled by certain vested interest by offering appointment to others which led to the petitioner raising an issue with the respondents authorities regarding their non-appointment. In the meantime, the seven persons who were selected were not offered appointment letters. They came before the High Court seeking a direction in their favour. Matter was heard by the High Court and remitted back to the Collector, Darbhanga to examine the matter and pass necessary orders in this regard. The Collector passed an order remitting the matter to the authorities to render their opinion in terms of Annexure-2. The Block Development Officer was directed to conduct the proceeding in a public place for appointment of the candidates who were eligible for such appointment. The Block Development Officer issued notice to the seven persons who were petitioners before the High Court and the said notice is Annexure-3. Petitioners of this case have raised a grievance that they were not noticed in this regard which has created its own prejudice. Subsequently, it is the case of these 3 petitioners that appointment has come to be made. Out of seven candidates three candidates were appointed in terms of the order contained in Annexure-6. The present writ, therefore, is for a direction to the respondents to appoint three persons against the so-called vacancy caused due to non-appointment or non-appearance of those candidates as the case maybe. It is their case that they too ought to have been noticed before the decision for appointment came to be taken in favour of the private respondents. The stand of the State is that no doubt when the merit list was prepared the name of these petitioners did figure and they had the requisite marks which are indicated in the so-called merit list which was drawn up and is annexed as to the counter affidavit. But these persons could not be appointed because they failed to furnish certificate of age as well as caste certificate. In absence of the two vital certificates their case was ignored and appointments of the rest, therefore, came to be made. Learned counsel submits that they had already furnished their educational certificate of Matriculation and Intermediate which indicated their date of Birth. Therefore age. Hence a separate application or certificate showing their age was not required. So far as caste certificate is concerned, according to them, it was not relevant because if they failed to provide such certificate they ought to have been treated as general category candidates and their cases should have been considered in that particular category. The categorical stand of the respondents about non- 4 furnishing of these two certificates being the basis for non-appointment or non-consideration is based on the guidelines which had been issued by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of Bihar. There are provisions to furnish age and caste certificates. They had relevance in such appointments and, therefore, insistence of the respondents to demand them. Those certificates were vital for the scrutiny of the candidates from that point of view since even for appointments in the Siksha Mitra at the relevant time a roster clearance was in existence. Submission of the counsel representing the petitioners is merely based on hypothesis and he has not been able to demonstrate from evidence on record that non-furnishing of these two certificates was not a must. It could not be left to the respondents to draw inference on their own for these candidates to be treated in the general category. The applications filed by the petitioners are not on record which would show as to under which category they were seeking appointment because the merit list and the appointment had to be further based on roster clearance against the vacancy in place. The candidature of these candidates, therefore, came to be rejected in the very first place on those grounds and it cannot be said that the grounds for rejection was alien to the process of recruitment. So far as notice to these petitioners by the Block Development Officer is concerned, this Court can only record that the District Magistrate and the Block Development Officer had carried out their responsibility in terms of the direction issued by the High Court. Since the issue was limited to those persons who were petitioners before 5 the High Court and the writ was disposed of with a direction to the respondent in the light of their claims for such appointment, notices could be issued to them alone. If petitioners were serious about claiming a position or a slot in the appointment process, they ought to have been vigilant and asserted their right at the opportune time. Now that the appointments have been made and exercise has been completed, it may not be correct to re-open the issue afresh more so when the exercise was completed on direction of the High Court. This writ application, therefore, is dismissed but if the petitioners still have eligibility and they fulfil other criteria and if more exercise is going for appointment of more teachers in the State of Bihar, petitioners will have freedom to participate in the same even if their claim was rejected at a point of time for the reasons indicated above. Shahzad ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)