IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13145 of 2005 1. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SRI SHYAMANAND SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LOHIYA NAGAR, WARD NO. 3 SINHA NIWAS, P.S. SUPAUL TOWN DISTRICT SUPAUL. 2. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SRI RAJNIKANT PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA POWER GANJ, BIHARI MILL, ANAITH P.S. ARA NAWADAH TOWN ARAH 3. UMESH KUMAR BIND SON OF SHRI SHIV RATNA KUMAR BIND RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MIR TOLA, BANGAON ROAD, P.S. SAHARSA TOWN DISTRICT SAHARSA. 4. ROCK TIGGA SON OF LATE EMIL TIGGA RESIDNET OF VILLAGE & P.O. CHHIPADOHAR, P.S.BARWADIH, DISTRICT LATEHAR (JHARKHAND) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION, PATNA. 7. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA. 8. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra. For the State :- Mr. Vipin Kumar, A.C. to A.G. For the B.P.S.C. :- Mr. Sanjay Pandey -------- 4 15/09/2010 These petitioners are before this Court seeking a - 2 - direction upon the respondents State of Bihar as well as the Bihar Public Service Commission to recommend their names for appointment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Excise) in terms of advertisement No. 31/99. According to these petitioners they also figured in the list of successful candidates. But ultimately when it came down to appointment, they did not get the letter of appointment under certain intervening circumstance since the Bihar Public Service Commission recommended only 57 names for appointment and left out the rest. This exercise has been termed to be arbitrary and illegal by the petitioners because they had acquired a vested right for appointment. Stand of respondent no. 6 is that mere selection gives no right of appointment as has already been held not only by this Court but even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They do not deny that a list of successful candidates was drawn up but after the process was undergone, the State of Bihar was bifurcated and a separate State of Jharkhand was created. 1/3rd of the post arising in the erstwhile State of Bihar had to be surrendered to the State of Jharkhand. It was in this - 3 - background that the number of vacancies had to be reduced by 1/3rd and only names to the extent of vacancies available for the State of Bihar was recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission and appointments made. Learned counsel thereafter submits that vacancies are still in existence and those can be offered to these successful candidates because they are not in the wrong so far as the non recommendation of their names is concerned. Learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission has drawn my attention to a decision dated 30.08.2010 passed in a similar circumstance which was a case of Dr. Punam Kumari and others and the number of the case was C.W.J.C. No. 3139 of 2004. Taking cue from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court had categorically held that mere existence of vacancies does not give a right for appointment from a select list because appointment is not a continuing process. In fact it comes to an end after the appointments are made from the select list. The fact stands that at the time when the - 4 - advertisement was made, the State of Bihar was one. If the appointments had to be made after bifurcation, then the State of Bihar could claim right to make appointment only to the extent of 2/3rd of the post advertised. If reduction to the posts to the extent of 2/3rd of the advertisement ousted many a persons from the zone of consideration, then mere selection will not give them a right for appointment or for a direction for appointment. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)