IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7132 of 2010 1. DINESH PASWAN S/O SUNDESHWAR PASWAN R/O VILL.- SAHDANI, P.S BAKHRU, P.S. SARIYA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LABOUR RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 3. THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING LABOUR RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr.Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Adv. For the State :Mr.Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-V. ----------- 2 02.02.2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Drawing Instructor on contractual basis under the Directorate of Employment and Training, Labour Resource Department. As per the case of the petitioner, against the process of appointment started in early 2010, he applied and his name figured at serial no.1 in the Scheduled Caste list. As per newspaper notice, the selected candidates were to be issued call letters for verification of their certificates which was to be held from 15.03.2010 to 23.3.2010. 2 Petitioner was awaiting for the call letter, but he did not receive the same and, therefore, on 25.03.2010, he approached the authorities for issue of duplicate call letter in terms of the guidelines of the Department, as contained in Annexure-4. However, he was informed that call letter had already been sent at his residential address and now that selection has closed, he could not be appointed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said call letter was sent at wrong address and, therefore, he never receive the same and thus did not get any opportunity to appear before the authorities within time to get his certificates verified. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contractual appointment was made in April, 2010 and its duration is only one year which is going to end in this April. Therefore, now that the contractual appointment of all the Drawing Instructors appointed in the process is going to end soon, petitioner’s case cannot be now 3 considered in terms of his selection made earlier. Nevertheless the following statement has been made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit in respect of the petitioner:- ‘That it is stated that in similar situated matter, appointment authority at Directorate level decided that matter within cut of marks will be looked in next verification. It is submitted that if in future contract appointment will be made on remaining post call letter for certificate verification will be sent to the petitioner.’ In the circumstances, in view of the above statement made in the counter affidavit, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the call letter is sent to the petitioner at his correct address and the same is received by him in case they take up the matter of appointment on contract basis in future on remaining post. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the correct address of the petitioner is Village-Sahdani, P.O.- Bakhra, P.S.-Saraiya, District-Muzaffarpur. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)