IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10994 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Akhilesh Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ambika Singh R/O Vill.- Manjhiaon, P.O.- Manjhion, Distt.- Garhwa (Jharkhand) Presently Resident Of Sardar Patel Colony Near Patliputra Telephone Exchange Kurji Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Information And Public Relations Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Information And Public Relations Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Director, Information And Public Relations Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Under Secretary Home (Special) Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain Mr. Achuta Nand Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 29-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant under advertisement dated 26.11.1997. The vacancies advertised were 13. The petitioner was placed at serial No.10 of the merit panel in the general category. The respondents recommended his name. Subsequently, because of the re- organization of the State and the consequent re-structuring of vacancies, the posts available got reduced. Thirty six posts Patna High Court CWJC No.10994 of 2010 (3) dt.29-11-2011 2 remained available in the State of Bihar. 50% was to be filled by direct recruitment and the rest by promotion. Eighteen posts therefore became available for direct recruitment. Nine of them belonged to the general category and the rest to the reserved category. The petitioner and others filed C.W.J.C. No.2318/01. He was respondent No.10 therein. A stand was taken on his behalf that he has wrongly not been recommended. The Court opined that since majority of the petitioners had been provided appointment it was not inclined to go into the matter further. The petitioner was permitted to pursue his claims before the authority opining “in case, certain vacancies are available their cases will be considered by the authorities concerned in accordance with law…..”. The denial of recommendation was not interfered. The aforesaid observation has to be understood in context of the denied recommendation. The petitioner did not question the order in appeal that the denial of recommendation had wrongly not been considered. The issue for denial of his recommendation thus attained finality. The subsequent order dated 8.4.2005 that three vacancies were available in the general category has to be appreciated in the background of the fact that the petitioner had not been recommended. The petitioner on 17.6.2006, nearly two years after Patna High Court CWJC No.10994 of 2010 (3) dt.29-11-2011 3 the order in C.W.J.C. No.2318/01, filed his representation before the authorities in light of the directions to represent. He also filed M.J.C. No.1536/07 for non-compliance of the order of the Court. On 22.10.2007 the respondents passed an order that as many as drivers were working as the number of vehicles available. The order dated 8.4.2005 was not a correct recitation of facts and that the author of the same had been warned for giving wrong information. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the information dated 12.3.2007 furnished under the Right to Information Act urged that after re-organization of the State 59 posts of drivers had been allotted to the State of Bihar out of which 25 were working. As on 10.3.2006, there were 40 vehicles, 3 had been sent for repairs and 37 were operational. It was more than apparent that vacancies were available and therefore there is no justification for not providing appointment to the petitioner. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining that the information furnished to the petitioner on 12.3.2007 was not correct. 62 posts fell to the State of Bihar and not 59 after re-organization. The discussion above with regard to availability of 9 vacancies in the general category has been reiterated. The matter relates to an advertisement published in 1997. The petitioner accepted an order of this Court in Patna High Court CWJC No.10994 of 2010 (3) dt.29-11-2011 4 2004 noticing that he had not been recommended to pursue matters in a representation. If he was sanguine about having wrongly been denied recommendation, there was no occasion for him to pursue matters on a representation. Rather his remedy lay in expeditiously seeking a conclusive finding with regard to whether he had been wrongly denied recommendation or not. The canvas of the controversy at that stage would have been limited. It has been noticed that the petitioner himself represented nearly two years after the order of the Court. He now seeks to widen the canvas for discussion by inviting the Court into a mathematical re- structuring of the vacancies as per roster and persuade it to hold that vacancies still existed. It is not possible today to go back to the year 2001 and start deciphering vacancies when a lot of developments after the advertisement have taken place by way of bifurcation of the State and re-structuring of vacancies. If 9 posts had fallen to the general category under the advertisement and in the original recommendation the petitioner stood at serial 10 with the respondents contending that they have as many drivers as vehicles available with them, the Court finds it difficult to give any direction for consideration of his case for appointment. The fact that vacancies may still be available, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, shall keep matters in the administrative realm of the respondents whether they wish to Patna High Court CWJC No.10994 of 2010 (3) dt.29-11-2011 5 fill the vacancies or not, dependent on availability of vehicles etc. If they do and the petitioner applies in response to the same, it shall be open for him to urge before the respondents that in the earlier process of selection they had in fact found him fit but that appointment did not follow which are matters to be appropriately considered by the respondents. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations in such a fresh process of selection. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)