IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.343 of 2011 Dr.Shyam Sunder Singh . Versus Dr.Sheo Mangal Mishra & Ors . ----------- Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Sinha. For the State : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, A.A.G.XIV. Mr.Ritesh Kumar No.1, Adv. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. K.B.Nath, Adv. Mr. Durga Narain, Adv. 5. 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and learned counsel for the intervener, Dr. Jhulan Prasad Singh who claims to have preferred I.A.No. 4356 of 2011, seeking intervention. Notice was issued to the writ petitioner, respondent no.1 and after appearance on his behalf, an application was also filed for vacating the interim order but now nobody appears on his behalf, probably because he has admittedly superannuated from service. So far as the intervention petition is concerned, we have been provided with a copy of the same and it shows that the intervener has claimed to be eligible for being promoted on the post of Deputy Director (Ayurved) in the light of a seniority list dated 2nd July 2010. There is no dispute that the appellant is occupying the said post of Deputy Director (Ayurved) since 2004. In view of the relevant facts mentioned in the impugned order, we find no good reason to allow the intervention petition because the interest of the intervener petitioner does not clash with the matter at issue which relates to claim of the appellant for being promoted to the post of Director (Ayus Sector)/ Regional Director (Ayus), the 4th category of post under rule 9 (b) of the Rules notified on 22nd December 2010 (hereinafter, referred to as the 2 ‘Rules’). The writ petition was preferred by the respondent no.1 for a direction to the authorities to consider his case also for promotion to the post of Director (Indigenous Medicine). There was no specific relief granted to the writ petitioner, except quashing of Annexure-7 whereby the case of the appellant was recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission on 3rd December 2010 for promotion to the post of Director (Indigenous Medicine). The writ court was persuaded to quash Annexure-7 not on account of any merit in the claim of the writ petitioner but only on the basis of the Rules having come into force on 22nd December 2010. The writ court held that on account of the Rules having been notified, a fresh exercise would be required to be done. The writ court further held that the earlier exercise leading to recommendation vide Annexure-7, was an ad hoc kind of exercise carried at the behest of the powers, that be without any settled guidelines in this regard. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the learned writ court did not look into rule 16 of the Rules which provides for repeal of earlier notifications/resolutions to the extent required by the Rules, but with a rider that any action being taken in previous cases shall not be affected by these rules. Submission on behalf of appellant is that once the recruitment to the promotional post had begun and the Commission had made its recommendation, the same could not have been interfered with, unless some illegality could be established against the recommendation and action of the Commission. Further submission is that the earlier exercise was not carried out at the behest of the power 3 that be, rather it was as per orders passed by this Court since 2009 and strictly in accordance with settled guidelines. According to learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the writ court made the aforesaid observations without adequate discussion of materials and without coming to any basis for recording such a finding. Now there is no clash of any personal interests, such as that of the writ petitioner who has superannuated from service. The State as a model employer is expected to protect the legitimate interests and expectation of the appellant which has crystallized on the basis of recommendation made by the Commission, unless the recommendation can be faulted on account of any illegality by the Commission. Generally the recruitment exercise is carried out in accordance with Rules existing when such exercise begins. Hence, in our view, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner only on his assertion that his case should be considered for promotion at hand. It was for the Commission to consider the case of all the qualified and eligible employees and no illegality has been shown in respect of the consideration and recommendations made by the Commission. The writ court has not recorded any such finding against the Commission. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition and allow this appeal. We order accordingly. Jay/ ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey,J.)