IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6179 of 2010 1. ASHA KUMARI, W/O MR. RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARI, ROAD NO.1, AT POSTAL PARK PATNA-1 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KULAHARIA (SATKHUTTA TOLA),P.O - KULHARIA, VIA- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 2. DR. RATNA SRIVASTAVA, D/O LATE VISHWANATH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT AT OFFICE OF B.D.O., PANCHDEORI, BLOCK- PANCHDEORI, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. F BIHAR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER ,RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY,RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,PANCH DEORI, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HASANPUR BLOCK , DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Adv. For the State : Pramod Kumar, A.C. to S.C.I. ----------- 3/ 06/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents also. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that an advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment on the post of Block Development Officer in different departments on deputation pending regular appointments against the sanctioned vacant posts. Executive Magistrate was not one of the posts advertised. The short grievance made is that notwithstanding the panel position of the petitioners 2 persons junior to them in the panel have been appointed ignoring the rank, position and seniority of the petitioners in the merit panel. The counter affidavit at paragraph-10 states that the petitioners have been appointed as Executive Magistrates equivalent to Block Development Officer. It is apparent from the advertisement at Annexure-1 that it was only the post of Block Development Officer for which applications were invited. The post of Executive Magistrate was not advertised. Any appointment from a merit panel prepared under the advertisement for the post of Block Development Officer has therefore to be strictly in light of merit only. Persons lower in merit position cannot be appointed by ignoring those in the higher panel position. That is arbitrary and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Executive Magistrate has to be stated to be rejected. Not being one of the advertised posts, the respondents have no authority in law to appoint the petitioners on those posts. An additional factor would be that the petitioners had never applied for such a post and they may not be desirous to be considered for such post. The respondent State is therefore directed to 3 correct the appointments made by it to bring it strictly in consonance with the merit panel. If the respondents have appointed any person lower in the panel ignoring persons above them, the respondents are cautioned to follow due procedures before effecting such removal or termination and not to pass orders of a nature sanguine and confident that the Court shall quash them immediately. Let this exercise be done and completed within a maximum period of two months and correct and proper appointments in accordance with merit position in the final panel be made within a period of two months. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)