IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1634 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18002 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 7573 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1634 of 2011. ====================================================== Virendra Kumar, S/o Shiv Narain Prasad, R/o Flat No. 401, Block-C, Narayan City Apartment, Sheikhpura, P.S. – Shastrinagar, Patna .... .... Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna through its Secretary 2. The Hon’ble Speaker, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna – 800 001 3. The Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna – 800 001 4. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment), Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna – 800 001 5. The Under Secretary (Establishment), Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna – 800 001 .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripthy, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 09-11-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 7573 of 2011. The delay of nine days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1634 of 2011. In this Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Patna High Court LPA No.1634 of 2011 (2) dt.09-11-2011 2 / 2 2 Letters Patent, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 18002 of 2010. The matter at issue is the selection to the post of Reporter in Bihar Vidhan Sabha. The appellant claims that pursuant to the advertisement published in 2001 the appellant had applied for the post of Reporter. He was found to be the best amongst the English Reporters. Nevertheless, he was illegally denied the appointment. It is the second round of litigation. It is not disputed that no appointment of English Reporter had been made pursuant to the said recruitment process. We are of the opinion that the respondents should not now after more than nine years be compelled to make appointment pursuant to the select list prepared in 2002. If the vacancy exists, the selection process is to be undertaken afresh. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)