IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5695 of 2009 Mukesh Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 25/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on 8.5.1999 against a vacant sanctioned post for 3 months which has been extended on 27.9.1999. There is no statement in the writ application if the petitioner has continued to work thereafter. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits with reference to Annexure-E that the services of the petitioner has not been extended after 4.3.2003. There is no material for the Court on record to satisfy it that the petitioner in pursuance of the appointment dated 18.5.1999 on a vacant sanctioned post, as mentioned in the letter of appointment, has worked continuously for a period of 10 years from that date. If he has, he may have a claim for consideration, but if he has not, the Court does not find it possible to grant him any relief. Prima facie, from the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of continuous working on a vacant sanctioned post. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)