IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1636 of 1999 1. RAMASHISH KUMAR, SON OF SRI PYARELAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAHINCHA, P.O.- LALBIGHA, P.S.- SHEKHOPUR, SARAI, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. 2. GOPAL PODDAR, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR PODDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RASIDPUR, P.O.- RASIDPUR, P.S.- BACHHBARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 3. KAILASH RAJAK, SON OF SRI AWADH RAJAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ATANAWAN, P.O.- ATANAWAN, P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MANOPUR, P.S.BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 5. AJAY KUMAR CHOWDHARY, SON OF SRI MAHESHWAR PRASAD CHOWDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RASIDPUR, P.S.- BACHHWARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- ADMINISTRATOR. 4. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA. :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad No.1, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate. ======= 3. 23.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioners were applicant for appointment on the post of Office Assistant in the Board pursuant to advertisement dated 14.09.1989, Annexure-1. They appeared and participated in the selection process and the list of successful candidates was published on the notice board in which their name also figured but later appointment process was cancelled and petitioners were not appointed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under - 2 - advertisement, Annexure-1 post of driver and stenographer was also advertised and selection process with respect to the vacancies of driver and stenographer was completed and appointment made but appointment on the post of Office Assistant for which petitioners had become successful was not made and the selection process was cancelled. 4. By filing counter affidavit counsel for the Board has confirmed that none was appointed on the post of Office Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.9.1989, Annexure-1. 5. In view of the fact that the Board decided not to proceed with the appointment process pursuant to advertisement dated 14.9.1989. Annexure-1 for the post of Office Assistant, it is the discretion of the employer to proceed or not to proceed with the selection process, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with such administrative decision of the Board not to proceed with the appointment process pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-1 as regards the post of Office Assistant and the writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)