IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18427 of 2011 Sushma Kumari Srivastava W/O Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Resident Of Village - Saidpur, Gram Panchayat Raj Ajora P.O. Saidpur P.S. Nagara, District - Saran ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary-Cum- Commissioner, Department Of Human Resource Devlopment Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Department Of Human Resource Development Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Saran At Chapra 4. The District Programme Officer, Chapra 5. The Child Development Project Officer (Incharge) Nagara, Saran 6. The Panhcayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Ajora P.S. Nagar, O.P. District - Saran ………………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 25.11.2011 The origin of the dispute relates to selection of one Neelam Kumari on the post of Anganwari Sevika for Centre No. 49, at Saidpur under the Ajore Panchayat Raj in the district of Saran. There has been protracted kind of litigation, which ended up at the High Court with filing of a Writ Application, which is C.W.J.C. No. 4585 of 2009. This Writ Application was disposed of on 21.07.2011, noticing the fact that the said Neelam Kumari stood terminated by the respondents on an enquiry being held in this regard. This Order of the learned Single Judge is at page 27 of the Writ Application. Petitioner has been emboldened in her assertion for a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on the post due to the vacancy caused due to removal of Neelam Kumari on an observation of the Bench, contained in hereinbelow: “Once a person is appointed on a post, the vacancy exhausts. Any termination subsequently 2 can only be filled by a fresh process of selection. If the grievance with regard to wrong appointment was made during a period of one year, considered to be the normal life of a panel, and the appointment was found to be wholly illegal leading to termination, a claim may arise for consideration, but keeping in mind that considerable time has passed since the filing of the writ application it shall be subject to availability of vacancy.” Submission of the counsel is that since she had filed her objection within one year of the selection and the life of panel subsists for one year, therefore, there was a right in her favour to be appointed as a natural corollary to the earlier ouster of Neelam Devi. There is an inherent flaw in such a submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The objection raised by the petitioner within a year is not the issue. The life of the panel subsists for a year means from the date the advertisement is made and selections are carried out. After selection, the learned Single Judge has himself noticed that the validity of the panel gets exhausted. Selection was made in the year 2007 and that vacancy can not be now filled in 2011 by appointing the petitioner. In addition to that the Court is constrained to record that in the same matter, an FIR has also been lodged and reading of the FIR would show that the entire selection process was vitiated as there was no mapping exercise carried out and many 3 irregularities existed in the selection process. If the selection process by itself was vitiated in totality there can not be any beneficiaries arising from the same selection exercise. There has to be a new exercise which is required to be carried out for filing up the post and nobody can step into the shoes of the earlier candidate more so when earlier selection was vitiated in entirety. Writ is disposed of. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)