IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9995 of 2006 1. MAHENDRA KUMAR PATEL, son of Shri Ganga Rai, resident of village Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 2. Jay Bharti Devi, wife of Ganga Ram, resident of Mohalla Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 3. Jitendra Prasad Rai, son of Ram Lagan Rai, resident of village Jamua Hall, Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 4. Sanjay Rai, son of Ram Narayan Rai, resident of village Samogi Tola Hall, Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 5. Tejnarayan Patel, son of Brij Bihari Patel, resident of village Jamua Hall, Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 6. Dahnanjay Kumar, son of Ram Narayan Rai, resident of village Samodhi Tola, Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran 7. Sarita Devei, wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of village Bhawanipur Jeerao, P.O. Motihari, P.S. Chautni, District East Champaran … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary 2. Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Secretary Revenue and Land Reform Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 5. Deputy Collector Establishment, East Champaran 6. Sub-divisional Officer, Sikar Hana, East Champaran, Motihari … Respondents. ----------- 6. 7.8.2009 Having heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State at length, this Court would find that the whole issue boils down to the validity and correctness of the panel prepared by the Collectorate of East Champaran in the year 2005. 2 It is the case of the respondent Collector in his counter affidavit that the petitioners’ name could not find place in the panel because they had not done work for a minimum period of 305 man-days. Counsel for the petitioners, however, would submit that the exclusion of the petitioners from the panel on the basis of the aforementioned criteria was wholly illegal and in fact based on error of record, inasmuch as all the petitioners have definitely worked more much more than 305 effective man-days. Counsel for the petitioners also went to explain that those persons who have been appointed on the basis of the said panel of 2005-06 have in fact worked for lesser man-days and yet have been favoured with an appointment by excluding the petitioners. A dispute of this nature would essentially involve investigation of facts and therefore, this Court without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioners would direct the petitioners to file a comprehensive individual representation with proof of their working showing number of 3 man-days before the Collector of the District who thereafter would be under obligation to examine the same and pass a reasoned order. If the Collector would find that the petitioners had effectively worked for more man-days than those who have been appointed on Class-IV posts, the case of one or more petitioners will also be considered afresh for their appointment in the same manner. On the other hand, if the Collector would find that there is no merit in such claim of the petitioners he would be required to record his reasons in his order. The aforesaid exercise must be completed by the Collector of the district within a period of six months from the date of filing of individual representation by the petitioners. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/