IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3747 of 2006 Jokhan Singh, Son of Late Kamal Singh, R/o-Srirampur, P.O.-Pathara, District-Gopalganj. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. The J.P. University through its Registrar, Chapra. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, J.P. University, Chapra. 4. The Registrar, J.P. University, Chapra. 5. The Principal, Gopalganj College, Gopalganj. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee. For the University : Mr. Shivendra Kishore. For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Waliur Rahman. Mr. Stayapal Norottam. For the State : Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, SC-22. -------------- 07 29.03.2011 The petitioner was employed as a cycle stand peon in the year 1993 by the Principal, Gopalganj College, Gopalganj, which is a constituent College of the J.P. University, Chapra. The appointment letter is Annexure-1 which clearly states that the payment of remuneration to the petitioner would be on the internal resources of the parking stand. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for his permanent absorption in the College in question. It is submitted that as per the staffing pattern petitioner ought to have been permanently absorbed in the College. It is further stated that in January 2005 an advertisement was issued by the University for the College in question for recruitment of Class-IV employees. Petitioner also applied. Eight persons were selected but not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these selections are not as per the staffing pattern and petitioner has been wrongly left out. In the counter affidavit, University has denied that the petitioner had been working since 1983 on wages to be paid from the - 2 - money collected from the parking stand. Petitioner claims that he was working as a night guard has neither been accepted nor specifically denied. However, the fact remains that when it came to recruitment petitioner had applied and was not selected. Petitioner states that the advertisement/selection was not in accordance with the staffing pattern. In my view, that does not affect the matter at all. Eight persons for various jobs were to be recruited and were recruited where petitioner failed to get selected, he cannot make a grievance. However, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per staffing pattern there ought to have been nine posts which ought to have advertised. In my view, the rights of petitioner only come once an advertisement is issued. Petitioner cannot force the University or the authorities to advertise and appoint even though posts are lying vacant as per the staffing pattern that is the prerogative of the University. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. It is observed that for the period for which petitioner has worked, as per College own admission, was entitled to payment at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and the same should be cleared by the Principal concerned within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)