IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9648 of 2007 1. Bijendra Pathak, S/o Late Kapil Muni Pathak, Resident of Village Mahadah, P.S. Buxar (Muffasil), District Buxar. 2. Uma Shankar Mishra, S/o Lallu Jee Mishra, Resident of Village Chakrahansi, P.O. Pandey Patti, P.S. Buxar (Muffasil), District Buxar. 3. Vinay Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Lal, Resident of Mohalla Musafirganj, P.O. Gajendhar Ganj, P.S. Buxar Nagar, District Buxar. 4. Ram Ram Tiwari, S/o Shri Jai Govind Tiwary, Resident of Village Koirpuravan, P.O. Buxar, P.S. Buxar Nagar, District Buxar. 5. Lallan Kumar Pathak, S/o Shri Siddhnath Pathak, Resident of Village Ori, P.O. Maldah, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 6. Ram Parvesh Tiwary, S/o Late Brahmdeo Tiwary, Resident of Village Moharia, P.S. Dhansoi, District Buxar. 7. Krishna Murari Pandey, S/o Shri Uma Shankar Pandey, Resident of Village Hari Kishunpur, P.O. Dalsagar, P.S. Audyogic Buxar, District Buxar. 8. Om Prakash Srivastava, S/o Nagendra Lal Srivastava, Resident of Village Oghawalia, P.S. Brahmpur, District Buxar. ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The Collector Buxar, District Buxar. 5. The Additional Collector, Buxar. 6. The Nazarat Deputy Collector, Buxar. 7. The S.D.O., Buxar. 8. The S.D.O., Dumaron. 9. The District Welfare Officer, Buxar. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 30.10.2009 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the State. Initially, in this writ application filed by the eight petitioners, the prayer was made to the following effect:- “1/A. For issuance of an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the 2 Respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment on Class IV posts pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/Buxar, Nazarat dated 16.7.2005 published in Hindi daily “Hindustan” on 26.7.2005. 1/B. In the alternative for issuance of an appropriate writ to the Respondents commanding them to produce the final select list and the orders of the appointments pursuant to Advertisement No.1/Buxar dated 16.7.2005 and then to quash the same.” This writ application in fact having been filed on 2.8.2007, the respondents with reference to the aforementioned relief have come out with a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit which would go to show that based on the records and the Government resolution including the resolution of the Personnel Administrative Reforms Department being No. 639 dated 16.3.2006, first of all a panel was drawn and thereafter from the panel, the name of the candidates found eligible against 65 vacancies were sorted out. The main challenge of the petitioner, in fact, is to the preparation of panel and placing Dwarika Prasad Yadav, Mahendra 3 Singh, Hareram Singh, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Lalmuni Devi and Rambhajan Pandey at the top of the list of appointment. It is, therefore, their case that if they, the aforementioned six persons, being left out of the earlier panel were given preference and placed at the top of the select list, the petitioners also being engaged prior to 11.12.1990 ought to have been given the same treatment. Mr. Mandal, however, clarifies that whereas in the case of the aforementioned six persons, there was an evidence of their being earlier empanelled and being part of the panel of 49 persons but no similar evidence of the petitioners being empanelled was available. Mr. Mandal would further submit that as a matter of fact the petitioners ought to have filed their representation against the placement of their name in the panel and/or any of the other persons prior to rushing to this Court. This Court for the time being would not like to put any final word but then the way this selection has been done and sought to 4 be reduced in writing in forewords to the panel in fact ought to have been notified for general information. It is only then that the petitioners or others would have been made aware of the norms of selection and could have also filed evidence of their being either earlier empanelled candidates or being eligible in the same manner as those six persons who were appointed in preference to the petitioners. That having been not done, there is a lot of heartburning amongst the petitioners and similarly situated persons. The clock, however, now cannot be reversed back on account of the fact that the appointment has already been made and the six persons or any other persons who according to the petitioners were not eligible to be appointed in preference to them having already joined their post. Nonetheless if the petitioners can still demonstrate before the Collector of the districts that while appointing six of them as named above they were discriminated and were left out for no good reasons, they can 5 still get such appointment either against existing vacancies or in their absence, by removal of the last six candidates of the respective categories. Thus, in the event such a grievance is raised by the petitioners or any one of them, the Collector of the district having examined them would be under obligation to pass a reasoned order disclosing the grounds on which the petitioners were sidelined or not empanelled and appointed vis-à-vis those persons who are said to have been empanelled and appointed in preference to the petitioners. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioners are therefore also given liberty to file their fresh individual comprehensive representation highlighting their case as also bringing specific allegation against any of the persons appointed so that the same can be examined by the Collector of the district in a comprehensive manner before disposing of such representation of the petitioner(s) by a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of filing 6 of their representations along with a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that till the disposal of this representation(s) of the petitioners, no further appointment on any Class-IV post in Buxar Collectorate shall be made either from the impugned panel or from any other panel prepared thereafter. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)