IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7813 of 2003 1. Kumari Rita Devi @ Kumari Rita Suman, Wife of Krishnadeo Mehta, Resident of Village Padumnagar, P.O. & P.S. Karjain Bazar, District Supaul. 2. Phulan Devi, Wife of Bansilal Das, Resident of Village Simrahi, P.S. Raghopur, District Supaul. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Collector cum Chairman, District Establishment (Appointment) Committee, Supaul. 3. Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa. 4. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical, Supaul. ---------- Respondents ----------- 7 6.1.2010 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That the petitioners pray for issuing a direction, order or a command in the nature of a writ of Mandamus to the respondent authorities specially the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Supaul to appoint/consider for appointment the case of the petitioners who have been empanelled in the list of Selection to the Post of Orderly Peons (Anusevaks) having their names mentioned on serials 110 and 112 of the Panel list dated 12/8/2002. And The authorities be further directed to accept their appointment with the requirement of educational 2 qualification as required at the time of publication of advertisement of the vacancy and not the requirement of educational qualification as given/mentioned in the penal against their names.” Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that earlier a panel was prepared under the joint signature of the Collector, Supaul and Establishment Deputy Collector, Supaul on 19.6.2000 with the caption “panel for the post of peons” for Supaul Collectorate for the year 2000. Mr. Mukund has proceeded on that basis that since the name of the petitioner no.1 was at serial no.112 and that of petitioner no.2 at serial no.110 in the said panel, there was no justifiable reason for deleting the names of the petitioners in the subsequent panel prepared under the decision of the District Establishment Committee, Supaul. Counsel further proceeds on an assumption that deletion of the name of the petitioner no.2 was made only because she could not produce the certificate of her passing the school examination of Class-9, for which there was no requirement that the candidate must be 3 qualified of studying up to Class-9. Mr. Mukind, therefore, would submit that the entire exercise which has been done by the Collector of Supaul in dropping the name of the petitioners from the panel is arbitrary and consequently, the petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed in paragraph no.1 of this writ application (already quoted above). Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the so-called panel relied by the petitioners was in fact never approved and in fact was a mere compilation of the details of the candidates and thus an unapproved panel. He has also in this context referred to the specific statement in the counter affidavit that after the District Establishment Committee had received the applications in respect to the advertisement dated 10.4.2000, it has decided to prepare a panel of only 100 candidates and therefore, under the criteria that was fixed, the names of the petitioners could not have been figured. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of the petitioners as with regard to 4 their appointment in the Collectorate. Each of the Collectorate is a separate establishment and Class-4 post of Peons therein have to be filled up strictly in accordance with the Government Circular No. 16441 dated 3.12.1980. The said circular also lays down the procedure as to how a panel has to be prepared. One of the necessary concomitant of such procedure laid down in the aforesaid circular is that a body, a Selection Committee, would be constituted in which one of the representatives will be a scheduled caste and of scheduled tribe officer of the district. In fact, the full consideration of the Establishment Committee for selection for the post of Class-4 post has been clearly spelt out and accordingly, this Court is not in a position to accept that the compilation of the list of 126 candidates with the joint signature of Collector, Supaul and Establishment Deputy Collector, Supaul dated 19.6.2000 is the panel in terms of the Government circular dated 3.12.1980. This becomes clear also from the fact that the details out of 126 candidates, at three places 5 have been left vacant which is at serial nos. 124, 125 & 126. It is, therefore, clear that what has been projected by the petitioners by way of approved panel was a mere compilation of the names of the candidates, who had filed their applications pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.4.2000. As a matter of fact, the proceedings of the Establishment Committee representing as many as 11 persons under the chairmanship of the Collector would itself unfold that from such compilation, the people who had any grievance as with regard to the placement had filed their objections which was duly considered and thereafter, a panel of 100 persons for the post of Peons and another panel of 13 persons for the post of Sweepers was prepared. It has to be also taken into account that the advertisement no. 1 of 2000 dated 10.4.2000 was in respect of 16 posts of Peons and advertisement no. 2 of 2000 was in respect of five posts of Sweepers (Jharudar). In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that if for 16 posts of Peons, the Establishment Committee had ultimately decided to constitute a panel of 100 persons, that was 6 bad or vitiated, inasmuch as, the ratio of 1:6 is definitely within the limit as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1985(4) SCC 417. This Court, therefore, does not find any flaw in drawing of such panel of 100 candidates and merely because in the compilation/unapproved panel drawn by the Collector of the district, there was also name of the petitioners figured that would not give the petitioners any right for being finally included in the approved panel. Nothing has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitoiner as with regard to the inter-se comparative merit of the candidates whose names were included in the panel and therefore, this Court must hold that the appointment also, which have been made from the aforementioned panel, cannot be now interfered with. That would be the end of the first part of relief of the petitioners as with regard to the empanelment for the purposes of appointment on the post of Peons in the Supaul Collectorate. 7 Coming to the second part of the relief as with regard to the appointment in the office of the Civil Surgeon, this Court would hold that the advertisement was not made for those posts and therefore, the Civil Surgeon has also not been able to defend his action by not appointing any one from the aforementioned panel. It is true that in the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980, there is a provision for recommending the names to other district head from the common panel prepared by the Collector but then it cannot be said that unless the entire panel is exhausted, the appointment to be made from the Collectorate panel has to be followed by all the other district authorities. The appointment in the office of the Collector and in any district head would not only depend on the prescribed qualification for the post but also on the requisition that is submitted by the office of the Collector on an annual basis. That is how, the whole scheme of appointment in Class-IV posts has been prescribed in the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980. This Court, in fact, would find that the claim of the petitioner 8 for appointment in the office of the Civil Surgeon on the basis of their inclusion of name in the alleged panel, which in fact was never approved and thus acquired the status of a panel in terms of the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980, is wholly misconceived and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any of the relief as claimed in this writ application. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)