IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2237 of 2011 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Singh son of Sri Raghubansh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Subhash Patti, P.O. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Committee, A/28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Committee, Patna Regional, Boring Road, Patna 4. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kishanganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Munna Prasad Dixit (M.P.), Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.K.Agrawal, Advocate ====================================================== 4 30-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Navodaya Vidyalaya Committee. 2. Pursuant to requisition made by the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kishanganj on 29.12.2008, the name of the petitioner was also recommended by the local Employment Exchange for the post of Lab Attendant. On 31.5.2009, the school authorities subjected the petitioner and some other applicants for the post to a Trade Test at a Government Polytechnic at Purnea. The petitioner was shown to be successful as per Annexure-2 dated 5.6.2009. Thereafter, at the school level a four- men committee was constituted and since the petitioner was the only successful candidate in the Trade test, he was Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2011 (4) dt.30-08-2011 2 recommended for appointment by including him in the panel prepared on 13.7.2009. As per requirement of rules, the approval of respondent no.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Committee, Patna Region was sought by sending all the relevant records. By order dated 6.10.2009, respondent no.3 cancelled the selection process indicating some of the reasons. That order contained in Annexure-4, was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench vide O.A. No.121 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.4.2010 contained in Annexure-5. 3. The Tribunal in the impugned order has noted the contentions of both the parties and has further noticed that there was difference between qualification stipulated for the post of Lab Attendant which was “Middle pass with general science” and the qualification mentioned in the requisition sent to the employment exchange which was “VIII pass”. The Tribunal relied upon the settled proposition of law that inclusion of name in the select list does not confer any right to be appointed. There is no difficulty in accepting that legal position which will be evident from judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2011 (4) dt.30-08-2011 3 attempted to make out a case that the reasons contained in order dated 6.10.2009 for cancelling the selection process are without merit and the cancellation was arbitrary. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent Navodaya Vidyalaya Committee relied upon materials in the counter affidavit to highlight the difference in the qualification stipulated for the post and the one communicated to the Employment Exchange. He further highlighted that undisputedly the competent authority had directed the Principle of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kishnganj as well as Principal of some other schools vide his letter dated 22/23.4.2009 (Annexure- R/3 to the counter affidavit) to stop appointment process of Lab Attendant until further orders. Some other alleged irregularities are also mentioned in the order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-4) and on the basis of all these facts, it was submitted that no case for arbitrariness was made out on the part of respondent no.3. 5. Having heard the parties and considered the relevant materials we find that legally the petitioner does not have any right to claim appointment only because he is in the select list. On facts also, we are of the view that the Principal and other authorities of the school were not entitled to proceed with the selection process after it had been directed to stop so far as Lab Attendant is Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2011 (4) dt.30-08-2011 4 concerned. Hence, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)