IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17766 of 2009 1. SANJAY SINGH S/O LATE RAMSIDH SINGH R/O VILL MANANPUR,P.O.MOK, P.S.KONCH,DISTT-GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT , PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE GAYA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR NAZARATH,GAYA ----------- For the petitioner:-Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr.Anant Kumar, AC to SC XI 4 30.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Only relief which is prayed by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to include his name in the panel of daily wage employees, prepared in response of Advertisement No. 01/2004 dated 21.10.2008 for appointment on Class IV posts, in the District of Gaya.. Petitioner’s grievance is that though his name was included in the earlier panel of 2000-2001 prepared against Advertisement No. 18 of 2000 but in the fresh panel his name not included, for the reason that the panel of 2000-2001 was quashed, by the High Court, in the writ application preferred by such persons, whose names could not be impleaded in the panel of 2000- 2 2001. While disposing of the writ application, specific direction was issued to the respondent authorities that in the new panel panelist of earlier panel as well as panelist in waiting lists are needed to be impleaded. Persons whose names were in the panel of 1995-1996 or in the subsequent panel if they could not be appointed as per circular of the Government that list should also be revalidated and the names of such persons should also be included in the next panel giving weightage in seniority. Directions were also issued to be followed in preparation of the panel and weightage is to be given to persons whose names were there in the earlier panel. Grievance of the petitioner is that since in the panel of 2000-2001 his name was there and the same was quashed and a direction was issued by the High Court to prepare a fresh panel, the respondents while preparing the fresh panel left his name, as such his name could not be considered in the fresh panel dated 21.10.2008 and he remained deprived from appointment on any class III post. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 State, it is stated that since the panel of 2000-2001 prepared against Advertisement No. 18 of 2000, consisting of seven hundred fifty candidates was quashed by the High Court and a direction was issued to give relaxations to the candidates of the earlier panelist, as such the name of petitioner did not appear in the panel list of 1999-2000 and the panel of 2000-2001 in which his name was included was quashed, as such in the panel prepared against advertisement no. 01/2004 his name was not included. It has also been stated that in the light of the direction of the High Court all procedures have been followed. Relaxations have been given and the appointment process has been concluded. I find that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the direction given for preparation of panel. Since specifically it was stated that the persons whose names were there in the earlier panel, they must be included in the fresh panel. Panelist, , who were their earlier in 1999-2000, 2000-2001 panel and the persons, who were left from being appointed, and in waiting list, names of all these persons were required to be included 4 in the fresh panel. Petitioner’s name was there in the panel of 2000-2001, as such despite the fact it was quashed, his name must have been included in the subsequent panel prepared on 21.10.2008 and considering his seniority weightage should have been given to him and in case the age relaxation was required that should have also been allowed to him. Since it was not done by the respondents, petitioner has come before this court for considering his candidature against the vacancy in Advertisement no. 01 of 2004. The respondents must comply this direction, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. Writ application stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar