IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13962 of 2009 1. KUMARI RENU SINHA W/O SUBODH KUMAR VERMA MOH- GABRAPAR, P.S. HILSA, DISTT. NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS) DIRECTORATE, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, INDIRA BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, RAM CHARITAR SINGH PATH, PATNA-1 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA 8. SUSHMA DEVI APPOINT THE PETITIONER AT THE POST OF ANGAN W/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR MOH- NAYA MAHALLA (GABRAPAR), P.O. HILSA, P.S. HILSA, DISTT. NALANDA ----------- 2/ 05/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The contention is that in a merit list dated 3.4.2007 drawn up for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika respondent No.7 was placed at Serial No.1 while the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2. Aggrieved with the same she preferred a representation before the District Magistrate and when the same was not considered she filed C.W.J.C. No.9937/07, disposed on 3.9.2008 with directions to the District Magistrate, to pass appropriate orders. The impugned order dated 9.9.2009 has then been passed holding that respondent No.7 obtained appointment on forged and fraudulent educational qualifications. The contentions of the petitioner were justified. The appointment of respondent 2 No.7 was set aside, but directions have been given to initiated fresh processes of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justification for resort to fresh selection and appointment. Learned counsel for the State urges that the order calls for no interference. Mere empanelment per se creates no right. Appointment of a person from the panel and subsequent removal/resignation does not the panel normally which stood extinguished on such appointment. But, when the finding is of an appointment secured by fraud and forgery, it cannot be stated that there had been any appointment in accordance with law. It is as if the person appointed never figured in the panel. The petitioner quite obviously appears to have moved well within the life of the panel, which is normally considered to be one year when she moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9937/07. The principle discussed above of the panel standing extinguished on joining of a candidate shall not apply in the present facts and circumstances. The impugned order dated 9.9.2009 is, therefore, set aside only to the extent that it directs a fresh selection process. 3 Since notice has not been issued to respondent No.7, naturally the implementation of this order shall remain subject to any orders of a competent court of law on any application preferred by respondent No.7 against the impugned order details whereof are lacking in the writ application. The writ application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid discussion. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)