IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2759 of 2007 Surendra Kumar, son of late Durga Prasad, resident of P.N. Sinha Compound, Bhikhana Pahari, P.S. Pirbahore, District- Patna. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. the Director, Directorate of Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, 15, Jawahar lal Nehru Marg, (Balley Road), Patna. 5. The Officer-on-Special Duty, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg (Balley Road), Patna. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Praveen Kumar Mr. Shantanu Kumar For the State:- Mr Awadesh Kumar, A.C. to S.C.17 For the BPSC:- Mr. Sanjay Pandey. ----------------- 2. 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the Bihar Public Service Commission. Petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Proof Reader pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 1999 by the Bihar Public Service Commission. He was also recommended for such appointment. In the light of recommendation, petitioner was called upon to submit his medical fitness certificate which petitioner promptly submitted. After submission of the medical fitness certificate, direction to join the post was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1571 of 2002 which was disposed of under order dated 20.01.2006 directing the authorities of the State 2 Government to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for appointment on the post of Proof Reader. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 20.01.2006, the Official Language Department of the State Government has passed order bearing memo No. 708 dated 30.08.2006, Annexure-9 stating that department does not require any Proof Reader, as such, petitioner shall not be appointed. By filing present writ case aforesaid order dated 30.8.2006, Annexure-9 has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner having been selected against the single post of Proof Reader after advertisement and petitioner having submitted his medical fitness certificate, the authorities of the department should be directed to appoint the petitioner as authorities had taken about six years to inform the petitioner that they do not require to fill-up the post of Proof Reader. The aforesaid submission in my opinion is wholly misconceived as selection and recommendation for appointment as Proof Reader does not vest the petitioner with the right of being appointed. It is open for the appointing authority not to accept the recommendation for appointment for just and valid reason. In the instant case the appointing authority has refused to act on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission as the department does not require the services of Proof Reader. I do not see any illegality in the approach of the 3 appointing authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Ravi/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)