IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13505 of 2002 MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA, son of Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, resident of village- Korut, P. S. –Chandi, District- Nalanda. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. 2. The District Officer/Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 3. The Nazarat Deputy Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 5. The Block Development Officer, Chandi, Nalanda. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner … Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. For the State Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A.5 ------ 6. 07.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) To issue a direction or directions, order or orders, writ or writs in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs to the respondents quashing the actions of the Block Development Officer, Chandi (the B.D.O. in short), respondent no. 5, dated 10.10.2002 removing the petitioner from the post aforesaid (night guard) by his verbal order and who also took a possession of the office keys and etc. (ii) To issue another writ or writs in the nature of prohibition and/or any other more appropriate writ/writs to the respondents most particularly respondent no. 5 restraining him not to disturb the petitioner from discharging his uninterrupted 2 official duty/duties and allowing him to function on the post aforesaid with all responsibilities and duties as he had been functioning previously since 28.1.1998 regularly forthwith as also treating him to be in a continuous service since 28.1.1998 aforesaid and according him regular status by absorbing him in service. (iii) To issue a further direction or directions order or orders or writ or writs by way of mandamus to the respondents to clear his all arrears of salaries/remunerations due on the respondents particularly, respondent no. 5 on a daily rated basis for the months of July, August, September and 10 days of October, 2002 i.e. by 10th of October, 2002 as also for periods of the works done by him on the occasion of Dasserha festival in accordance with law forthwith.” Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner admittedly was enrolled/listed as a candidate peon in the year 1998 and had continued not only on the rolls of Collector in such list of candidate peon but was also assigned certain duties on account of his being found eligible for the post of night guard in Chandi Block. The grievance of the petitioner in fact is that after being allowed to work for a considerable length of time i.e. more than 4 years he was 3 unscrupulously removed by the order of Block Development Officer dated 10.10.2002 leading to filing of this writ application. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that in any event, the petitioner has no indefensible right to claim either employment or assail his removal from any assigned work given to him in the capacity of candidate peon. In this context he would also refer to the Circular of the State Government contained in Letter No. 16440/16441 both dated 3.12.1980 to contend that normally the appointments of Class III and Class IV posts in the Collectorate and its attached offices and in fact in other department at district level have to be made from a common panel which has to be prepared on the basis of advertisement and selection. He would, therefore, submit that merely because the name of the petitioner was enrolled in the candidate register as a candidate peon to be maintained in the collector's office that by itself would not given any right to continue in service 4 and claim appointment in preference to other candidates. In the opinion of this Court, the only limited grievance of the petitioner presented by Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner has been allowed to figure at in the list of candidate peons till 2002 and after the year 2002 his being excluded from such list of candidate peons as a mark of follow up measure of the removal of the petitioner from the work of night guard in Chandi Block, District Nalanda seems was illegal. Such submissions of Mr. Thakur is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner was never absorbed or appointed against a night guard post or on any Class IV post in the manner prescribed. Thus the petitioner can only claim for retaining of his name as a candidate peon by inclusion in the panel till the list of candidate peon is being continued or he got appointed on a Class-IV post substantive basis. To that extent the circular of Board of Revenue of the year 1980 and 1987 5 are absolutely clear and therefore if the petitioner approaches the Collector of Nalanda District he would consider the limited grievance of the petitioner for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of candidate peon for its being continued as per original seniority of the year 1998 provided there is nothing against him. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may approach the Collector of Nalanda District along with a copy of this order and a representation seeking the aforesaid reliefs and the Collector thereafter must pass a reasoned order while allowing or rejecting his representation within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)