IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8219 of 2003 SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF RAM KARAN GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARJHIN BAZAR, P.S- KARJAIN BAZAR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT, SUPAUL. …………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sinha. For the respondents:Mrs. Nilu Agrawal,G.A-6 and Mr. Zaki Haider, A.C to G.A-10. ----------- 08/ 05.01.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the original records produced by the Collector of Supaul district in person, it becomes clear that one Sanjay Kumar Jha at serial no. 36 of the panel had been included as a Viklang candidate. The claim of the petitioner also happens to be one for inclusion in the panel on the basis of his being Viklang but then the reservation for Viklang is confined to only three per cent and thus if one person from the category of Viklang in total appointment of 26 persons, has already been made, the petitioner cannot get any effective relief even if his name is included in the panel. Thus the limited prayer of the 2 petitioner in this writ application for inclusion of his name in the panel cannot be allowed and especially, when there is also a serious dispute as with regard to the petitioner appearing in the interview. It may be noted that though the petitioner has made averment in the writ petition that pursuant to the receipt of the interview call letter, he had appeared in interview on 11.05.2000, the respondents have produced the documents in form of Annexure-A and Annexure-C to show that the petitioner had not appeared in such interview. Such disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in the application under Article-226 of the constitution. This Court, in fact, having perused the original records as also having heard the Collector of Supaul district in person is satisfied that non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel solely on account of his not appearing in the interview cannot be faulted either in fact or in law. If this Court would allow the claim of the petitioner for his being included in the panel despite his not appearing in 3 interview, similar directions will have to be given for rest of 25 persons whose name has also been earlier included in the panel only on account of their not appearing in the interview. It is also not in doubt that old practice of appointment of peon from amongst the panel of ummidwar peons has been discontinued and therefore once the whole transaction of preparation of panel and consequential appointment has already been completed in Supaul district, this Court would not exercise its discretion for re- opening the matter which may lead to unsettling the appointment of other persons from the panel. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal appearance of the Collector of Supaul district is also dispensed with. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)