IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3978 of 2010 1. INDRAJEET KUMAR S/O SRI GIRISH YADAV R/O VILL.- SITAKUNJ KALYAN CHAK, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMANDANT B.M.P.-21 NEW B.M.P.-4 4. THE CHAIRMAN B.M.P. (KENDRIYA MANDAL) BOARD NO.-2 CUM- S.P., SIWAN with CWJC No.3993 of 2010 1. INDRAJEET KUMAR S/O SRI GIRISH YADAV R/O VILL.- SITAKUNJ KALYAN CHAK, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMANDANT B.M.P.-8, BEGUSARAI 4. THE CHAIRMAN SELECTION BOARD (UTTARI MANDAL) BOARD NO.1-CUM- COMMANDANT B.M.P.-13 DARBHANGA ----------- 2/ 21/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to be an applicant under advertisement No.2/04 for appointment as a constable. He acknowledges that his name was in the waiting list and claims appointment on the ground of availability of vacancies. Mere inclusion of the name in the waiting list creates no right to appointment. The writ petition does not even disclose the number of vacancies and the number of persons whose names were there in the select list. There is no - 2 - averment that for what duration the select list was operational. There is no averment again that the merit position in the select list has been violated. There is no pleading that in accordance with the merit position of candidates, due to non-joining of candidates higher in the merit list, the petitioner was eligible to be considered. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala,(2009) 2 SCC 479, at page 483 : “12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti1.) The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. (See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar2.) In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India3 a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 7) “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or - 3 - any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” The writ petition is vague. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)