IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2330 of 2002 Suresh Kumar Ravi, son of Ganeshi Ram, resident of Valmiki Nagar, Gandhi Path, Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar 3.The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar 4.The Director, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar 5.The Joint Director Rajendra Agricultural University, Regional Research Centgre, Agwanpur, Saharsa 6.The Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar …………….. Respondents ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Binod Kumar Ambastha,Adv. For the State : Mr.Priyank Samdarshi, A.C. to S.C.20 For the University : Mr.Chandra Mohan Singh,Adv. ---------- 7. 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed in this writ application for a direction to the respondents to issue him appointment letter for the post of Routine Analyst in Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur and allow him to join on the post. From the materials on record and pleadings made, it appears that the selection process was adopted by the University in terms of the Scheme laid down in the order of the - 2 - Apex Court passed in S.L.P.No.18594 of 1994, according to which 35% vacancies had to be filled from amongst casual employees of the University and 65% by open advertisement in which along with others, casual employees who were not absorbed against 35% quota were also entitled to apply. Petitioner was the applicant under 65% quota. Admittedly, he was not a casual employee and therefore he applied for direct appointment. He has not been appointed. Therefore, he has moved this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to show that either junior to the petitioner in the panel was appointed by the respondents or respondents have exceeded 65% quota in the appointment. He has utterly failed to point out any violation of law in non-issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it has been elaborately demonstrated that the selection process was started and completed by the University strictly in terms of the directions of the Apex Court. In view of the failure on the part of - 3 - learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any legal flaw in the selection process depriving petitioner from opportunity of appointment, this writ application is dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)