IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5602 of 1997 PRAMOD KUMAR, S/O SHRI MUKESH PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BELBAL, P.S. VAISHALI, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND PUBLIC EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. ..........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 13.05.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. From perusal of the writ application and relief sought in para 1 of the writ application to the following effect:- 'That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order as contained in memo no. 715 dated 26.05.1997, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education-Cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar, Patna, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his appointment of class III post9clerk) pursuant to the direction /order of this Hon'ble Court dated 23.04.1996 passed in C.W.J.C NO. 6692 of 1994, has been rejected and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Clerk, for which all the legal procedures for regular and valid appointment were observed and the petitioner is/was waiting for his appointment and/or for issuance of a writ, order/direction for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereunder.' it would be clear that the petitioner is 2 virtually espousing a lost cause of the year 1987. The petitioner's name was included at serial no. 41 of a panel for the post of clerk, wherein, 39 posts were to be filled up in the year 1987. The petitioner, however, was of the view that he ought to have been appointed and when he had filed his earlier writ application in C.W.J.C NO. 6692 of 1994, the same was remitted back to the authority by the order dated 23.04.1996 to examine the grievance of the petitioner. The Director of Secondary Education, in the impugned order has found such claim of the petitioner to be wholly unsustainable by recording following reasons:- ^^mi funs'kd ¼ek0 f'k0½ }kjk fn;s x;s LFkyh; tkap izfrosnu ,oa {ks=h; mi f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek0 f'k0½ }kjk miyC/k djk;h xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; lkeus vk;k fd o"kZ 1987 esa laHkkfor fjfDr;ksa ds fy, ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh xbZ Fkh ftlls dzekad 1 ls 39 rd gh fu;qfDr;ka dh xbZA mDr lwph esa vkosnd dzekad 41 ij Fks dzekad 39 ds ckn ds vH;fFkZ;ks dks izfr{kd lwph ds :i esa ekuk x;kA dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= la0 6440 fnukad 3-12-80 esa fufgr izfdz;k vUrxZr iSuy oS/krk ,d o"kZ rd gh izrh{kd lwph ekU; Fkh vFkkZr o"kZ ds Hkhrj gksus okyh fjfDr;ksa dks gh ml izfr{kd lwph ls Hkjk tkuk FkkA o"kZ 1987 ds ckn dksbZ vkSj lwph dk fuekZ.k dk vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gqvk vkSj u gh o"kZ 1987 dh ojh;rk@izrh{kd lwph dks vxys o"kZ iquZthfor djus laca/kh dksbZ mYys[k gh n`f"Vxr gqvkA mijksDr fLFkfr esa o"kZ 1987 ds ckn fjfDr;ksa miyC/k gksus ij Hkh ml le; oxZ&3 ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq izHkkjh dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 16440 fnukad 3-12-80 ds vkyksd esa oknh Jh izeksn dqekj dh fu;qfDr laca/kh nkok vk/kkjghu gks tkrk gS pwafd o"kZ 1997 dh fjfDr;ka Hkjh tk pqdh Fkh ,oa ,d o"kZ ds ckn dh fjfDr;ka iwoZ o"kZ ds izrh{kd lwph ls Hkjk tkuk fu;ekuqdqy ugha Fkha oRrZeku esa oxZ&3 ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 11243 fnukad 6-12-95 ds vuqlkj fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx ds ek/;e ls ijh{kk vk;ksftr dj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;k tkuk gSA 3 vr% oknh Jh izeksn dqekj dk oxZ&3 ¼fyfid½ ds in ij fu;qfDr dk nkok vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** The fact that the respondents have fully supported the impugned order by asserting that no person beyond serial no. 39 was appointed on the post of clerk has virtually been admitted by the petitioner in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit. The life of the panel in fact as per the circular of the State Government was only for one year and therefore, merely because the petitioner was empanelled candidate at serial no. 41, he cannot claim the right of being appointed on the post of clerk. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court will have to hold that a panel of the year 1987 cannot be now allowed to operate after expiry of 24 years. That being so, this application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)