IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7995 of 2004 1 Md Shafi Alam, son of Md Nijamuddin, resident of village – Mogalpura Hashabad, P S – Mozahidpur, P O – Mirjanhat, Bhagalpur 2 Md Feza Khan, son of Md Mansur Khan, resident of village – Shabganj, P O – Champa Nagar, District – Bhagalpur 3 Sanjay Kumar, son of Shree Nawal Kishor Malakar, Village – Sharmari Bazar, P O – Pirpainti, P S – Pirpainti, District – Bhagalpur 4 Ajay Kumar, son of Nawal Kishor Mlakar, Village – Sharmari Bazar, P O – Pirpainti, P S – Pirpainti, Bhagalpur 5 Amarjeet Kumar Singh, son of Shree Shyamdeo Singh, village – Chakragn, P O – Ekchari, P S – Kahalgoan, District – Bhagalpur 6 Bindeshwari Kumar Singh, son of Tangar Prasad Singh, Chak Rajn, Khalgoan,District – Bhagalpur - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2 The Commissioner, Bhagalpur 3 The Deputy Collector (Estt), Bhagalpur 4 The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 5 Najarat Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Janki Nandan Prasad & Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Md Anis Akhtar, AC to GA 3 *** 4 20.01.2011 Counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioners do not seek to file a rejoinder. Pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at his stage itself. It appears that there were large numbers of vacancies in Grade – IV employees at various Government offices under the Bhagalpur Collectorate. No steps were taken to fill them up and, as such, a writ petition was filed in this regard being CWJC No 13268 of 1992. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.03.1995 with a direction to take steps to fill up the vacancies after due advertisement. Notwithstanding the said 2 direction, nothing having been done, a contempt application was filed before this Court being MJC No 487 of 1998 wherein on 03.02.1999, an assurance was given by the State that all steps would be taken and appointments made within six months. On the said assurance, on 06.09.1999, the contempt application was disposed of. It appears, in the meantime on 18.06.1998, an advertisement was issued for such appointments which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Petitioners applied. On 29.11.2000, a panel was prepared in which undisputedly petitioners figured. Petitioners were, thus, empanelled for appointment but again no appointment was made giving a complete go bye to the earlier steps taken. It appears that on 02.12.2001, again an advertisement was issued for upto date vacancies including vacancies which had occurred earlier. Advertisement had been made without final appointment. Petitioners applied. When panel was prepared, petitioners found that this time, their names were missing. It is this that has brought the petitioners to this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that upon scrutiny of applications, petitioners’ name could not be put on panel because they were either found underage or they were found overage. In support thereof, a chart is also printed in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the chart itself would show that it is only a pretence of an excuse or a pretext to deny petitioners the empanelment and consideration for jobs. He submits that if the advertisement (Annexure-4) is looked into, that prescribes the minimum and the maximum age. Some of the petitioners or their like may be above 3 age but certainly none of them can be underage. Referring to the chart, it is pointed out that all the petitioners, who have been shown as underage, were not underage for two reasons. Firstly, it is not denied that they were all empanelled prepared in the year, 2000. So, if they were not underage in the year 2000, how could they become underage in the year, 2001. A reference to the date of birth would also show that none of them are below 18 years of age in the year, 2000. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct that it is only a flimsy excuse or criteria to deny them empanelment. In the chart, a funny unexplained criterion is there. It says maximum and minimum age limit of empanelled candidates and various dates showing the period is given therein. No such criterion is there in the advertisement. No such criteria would, thus, be applied. It is, thus, clear that denial of empanelment of petitioners on ground of underage is not sustainable. So far as petitioner No 1 is concerned, he is shown to be overage. Undoubtedly, he is overage but on behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that he has been working earlier and was also empanelled earlier. Merely because the State did not choose to make appointments, it cannot disqualify people who had applied earlier when they were within consideration for appointment. In my view, the submission must be accepted. It is for the same very vacancy that petitioners have applied. He was earlier empanelled but for some mysterious reason, State did not choose to fill up the vacancy. They issued fresh advertisement. The vacancy being for the earlier period, petitioner No 1 cannot be excluded from that on ground of being overage. In the advertisement, as contained 4 in Annexure-4, it is clearly stipulated that those persons, to whom age relaxation is granted by the State or the High Court, would be considered accordingly. In my view, it is a fit case in which petitioner No 1 is to be granted age relaxation in the special facts and circumstances of the case. That being so, this Court has no option but to hold that all the petitioners would be deemed to be empanelled and would, accordingly, be dealt with by the respondents. They must take final decision with regard to their appointment within two months from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)