IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9306 of 2002 MANORMA KUMARI Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 09 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant in the backward category for the post of Correspondence Clerk in the Bihar State Electricity Board. The advertisement being for more than one post, Clause-10 of the advertisement stipulated that a candidate could apply for more than one post, but in that case the candidate should indicate her choices in order of preference for posts and separate applications were not required to be given for separate posts. One application would suffice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that like the petitioner, one Sunanda Kumari also applied only for the post of Correspondence Clerk in the B.C. category. The respondents themselves relaxed Clause-10 of the advertisement and considered her for appointment on the post of Store Assistant. To that extent, the fact that the petitioner did not submit any preference for the post of Store 2 Assistant is of no relevance and the Court concurs with the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that Sunanda Kumari, who was in the reserve category just above the petitioner did not join. The counter affidavit states that she joined, but did not appear for discharge of duties when her appointment was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the joining of the Said Sunanda Kumari was only a formality. She never came to discharge duties and came to be dismissed without discharging duty. The respondents are correct in their contention in the counter affidavit that once Sunanda Kumari joined, the vacancy exhausted itself. The question of considering the petitioner for appointment against a vacancy which had exhausted itself after the advertisement by joining and subsequent termination of the candidate satisfies this Court that the petitioner cannot urge that it was a vacancy under the advertisement and the petitioner should be considered for the same. The law stands well settled in this regard and if an authority be needed for the same, reference may be made to 2002 (1) SCC 113, State 3 of Punjab Vrs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr., holding in the relevant extract at paragraph-4 as follows:- 4. ……. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should that have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently ……… This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)