IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4035 of 2008 PRABHAT RANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD SINGH, C/o SRI PAWAN NAYAK, SHOP KEEPER, RESIDENT OF LAHERIAGANJ, WARD NO. 1, P.O.+P.S. MANGRAMI RAJ NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE ESTABLISHMENT DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE NAZARAT, MADHUBANI. -- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 15.4.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his name does not find place in the panel prepared by the State Government in its meeting dated 29.10.2004, contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the guidelines laid down in Annexure-2 have not been followed by the Committee in preparing the panel. It is specifically stated that the petitioner’s name was at serial no. 301 of the panel prepared in 1994. The guidelines do not indicate that the roster points will be taken into consideration while preparing the panel. It is also indicated that those persons who are ‘older’, other factors being equivalent, will be given preference in the panel. According to the petitioner this procedure was not followed. 2 Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it would appear from Annexure-A that the panel has been prepared only for the limited purposes of appointment after an advertisement was issued. Those persons are mentioned in the panel who applied for the post. A panel of 121 persons was prepared. In reply thereto the counsel for the petitioner submits that persons who were much juniors to him in the earlier panel prepared in the year 1994, have been included in the panel contained in Annexure-A. Specifically he refers to the case of one Jitendra Singh, Sabbar Imam Khan and Ashok Choudhary who were at serial no. 355, 350 and 302 of the 1994 panel. These persons have been included in the panel in the year 2004 at serial no. 52, 112 and 110 respectively. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that there were only 44 vacancies. The petitioner’s position was much lower in the list even in the 1994 panel itself much less to speak of the panel prepared in 2004 and as such he could not have been selected. It is also stated that the examples given by the petitioner become 3 irrelevant because of the fact that these persons have not been regularized/appointed. The petitioner has several grievances apart from what has been mentioned aforesaid. The grievances of the petitioner may be considered by the District Magistrate, Madhubani who will examine the panel prepared in 2004 and the decision of the Committee dated 29.10.2004 and pass an appropriate order within a period of six months on receipt of the representation. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)