IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3127 of 2005 1. SATENDRA RAM, S/O Sri Rameshwar Ram, R/O Ambedkar Nagar, Shahpur, P.S.-Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad. 2. Arjun Rajak, Son of Sri Tetar Rajak, R/o Naga Bigha, P.S.- Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad . 3. Purshotam Kumar Singh @ Purshotam Singh, S/o Sri Brij Bihari Singh, R/o Reriya, P.O.- Telari, P.S.- Chenari, District-Rohtas. 4. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Late Yamuna Singh, R/o Vill. & P.O. Arthua ,P.S.-Kasma, District- Aurangabad………...Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional District & Sessions Judge-I , Aurangabad. 4. The Additional District and Sessions Judge III,Aurangabad. 5. Pappu Kumar, S/o Deena Nath Pathak,R/O Behind of Veterinary College Compound, Road No.10, Patna. 6. Amar Kumar, S/o Rajnandan Prasad, R/o High Court Compound Khaprail Pose No.8,PS-Kotwali,District-Patna. 7. Neeraj Kumar, Father’s Name not known, at present Civil Court Compound at PS and District-Aurangabad. 8. Dhanjee Kumar, S/o Rama Shankar Paswan,R/o Naga Bigha, Patel Nagar, Aurangabad. 9. Surendra Pratap Singh, Father’s name not known at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 10. Anil Kumar Chaudhary Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 11. Babita Kumari, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 12. Nripendra Kumar, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 13. Sunil Prasad, Son of Kapildeo Ram, Nazir Civil Court at , PS & District-Aurangabad. 14. Shashi Kumar Shashi, Son of Baleshwar Prasad, Civil Court, Aurangabad, at , PS & District-Aurangabad. 15. Sachendra Kumar Roy, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 16. Vijay Singh, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 2 17. Mukesh Kumar, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 18. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 19. Sulekha Kumari, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 20. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 21. Md. Iabid Hussain Ansari, S/o Maish Hussain Ansari, at , PO- Kharaul, District-Nawadah. 22. Ajay Kumar, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 23. Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Chandeshwar Prasad at Ram Krishna Lane behind of Sarala Sadan, Naya Tola, District- Muzaffarpur. 24. Sunil Chandra Pathak, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 25. Sushil Kumar, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad. 26. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District-Aurangabad. 27. Kaushal Kumar, Son of Vinod Kumar Ram, at PO-Rampur, PS- Rajpur at present Umarpur Pethwari, PO-Manhari, PS-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur. 28. Krishna Kumar , Father’s name not known, at present available in the officer of the Respondent No.2 at, PS- and District- Aurangabad…………………………………….Respondents. FOR THE PETITONER: ALOK KUMAR SINHA BHOLA KUMAR FOR THE STATE :A.A.G.6.MR CHAKRADHARI SARAN SINGH, Sr. AD. DEEPAK SAHAY JAMUAR ----------- 9. 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3 Challenging the appointment of Class IV employees in the Judgeship of Aurangabad, in terms of Bihar Civil Courts Staff (Class III & Class IV) Rules, 1992, present writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash the list of appointment of Peons contained in Annexure -5. Further prayer is for a direction to the District Judge, Aurangabad to consider the case of petitioners for appointment, giving weightage to their work experience and relaxation of maximum age limit. Petitioners are claiming that since 1992 they were working as Peons and remained working till under the orders of High Court they were terminated from the post. Posts of Peons in Class IV were advertised vide Advertisement No. 02/02. The advertisement was modified and a fresh advertisement No. 01/04 was published for appointment of 23 Peons in the Judgeship of Aurangabad. Petitioners applied for the posts. They were interviewed but not selected for appointment. Mala fide has been alleged by the petitioners against the District Judge, Aurangabad (respondent No.2) and two members of the Selection 4 Committee, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. While alleging mala fide, it has been stated that the relatives and co-villagers of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were also applicants for the post advertised. Despite this fact, they continued as members of the Selection Committee. Respondents Nos.2 & 3 were allowed to be the member of the Appointment Committee under the directions of High Court and candidates who are relations/co- villagers of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were selected for appointment. Name of Sachendra Kumar Roy placed at Sl.No.13 in the selection list and Avish Kumar at Sl.No. 38 in the waiting list, has specifically been mentioned in the writ application. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 it transpires that the appointment Committee for making appointment of Class IV employees, consisting of the then District Sessions Judge and the two Senior Additional District and Sessions Judge 1 & 3 was constituted as per Rule 5 of Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & IV) Rules, 1992. During interview respondents 2 and 3 came to know 5 that one of the relatives of respondent No. 2 and two co-villagers of respondent No. 3 are also among the applicants .The District and Sessions Judge vide letter No. 1010 dated 04.11.2004 intimated the Registrar, Administration of High Court of Judicature at Patna for informing, that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 may be allowed to abstain from the selection process. In response to this letter the Registrar, Administration, Patna High Court, vide letter No. 7541, 27th Nov. 2004 intimated the respondent no. 2 that the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship has been pleased to direct that there is no need to change the appointment Committee of the Judgeship. In pursuance to the letter dated 27.11.2004 the same committee continued with the selection process and interview proceeded. However, the District Judge vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit and B-B/1 to the counter affidavit informed the Registrar that relative of respondent No. 2 and co-villager of respondent No. 3 namely Dilip Kumar have withdrawn their applications. Only Sachendra Kumar Roy continued with his application and he was selected for appointment. 6 I do not find any reason, to consider it a case of mala fide, has alleged by the petitioner, against respondents No. 2 & 3. Such allegation is unfounded as nothing had been surpassed or concealed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They, rather themselves wanted to abstain from the selection process but continued under the orders of the High Court. So far the relative of respondent No. 2 and one of the co-villagers of respondent No. 3 are concerned, they themselves withdrew their application. Simply because one of the co-villagers of respondent No. 3 was selected, there is no reason for cancelling entire selection list. Two intervention applications have also been filed by Binay Kumar and Ajay Kumar Sigh for impleading them as party in civil intervention application. I.A.Nos.9297/2010 & 9298/2010 are allowed, they are impleaded as respondents, however, on consideration of entire material, I do not find any reason to quash Annexure -5 i.e. the selection list. This application is dismissed. Nitesh ( Mridula Mishra, J.)