CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12538 OF 1996 ------------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ------------- 1. Subodh Mandal, son of Shri Ganga Mandal, resident of Village Jagdishpur, P.O. & P.S. Dharhara, District- Munger. 2. Ashok Kumar Roy, son of late Banarsi Roy, resident of Village- Maksaspur, P.S. Baijani, District- Bhagalpur -------- Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. ---- Respondents. --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate. For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G. I. ----------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ------------ S.K.Katriar,J. The two petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), to recommend their names to the State Government for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as ‘the S.I.’), and for the consequential direction to the State Government to appoint them accordingly. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. According to the 2 system then prevailing, selection process for appointment to the post of S.I. was conducted by the Bihar State Sub- ordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). The Board issued Advertisement No. 4 of 1985, which had appeared in a local daily dated 25.6.1985 (Annexure-1), inviting applications from eligible candidates. The petitioners applied against posts of the reserve category of extremely backward persons officially described as 04 category. The two petitioners were also candidates and had appeared at every stage of the selection process. It appears that large-scale bunglings alleged to have taken place in the selection process had given rise to C.W.J.C. No. 3104 of 1986 (Educated Unemployed Youth Welfare Council V. The State of Bihar and others), which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 5.5.1988 (Annexure-2), whereby, with consent of the parties, a three- member committee was constituted to examine the allegations/grievances of the petitioners. The committee was directed to submit its recommendations to the Board. The latter was directed to appoint only those candidates who would be cleared by the three-member committee. It examined the allegations, and submitted the report dated 27.8.1991 (Annexure-3). According to the petitioners, appendix VI to the same was the list of the candidates appertaining to reserve category no.04 (extremely backward 3 classes), as well as 06 category (scheduled caste category), and 02 category (Economically backward category), and had been cleared by the committee. We are here concerned only with 04 category. Petitioner no.1 figured at sl.no.22, and petitioner no.2 figured at sl.no.16 of the list. The list was forwarded by the Home Secretary to the Board, inter alia, stating therein that 30 candidates of the extremely backward classes (04 category) remained unfilled. 3. Before the Commission could consider the cases recommended by the committee, two writ petitions were preferred in this Court. One was C.W.J.C. No. 2779 of 1991 (Bihar Rajya Arakshi Awar Nirikshak (Daroga) Pariksharthi Sang & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein prayer was made that their names be referred to three-member committee for consideration. By interim order dated 25.9.1991 (Annexure-5), of a Division Bench of this Court, the respondents in the meantime were restrained from making appointments against any post of S.I. against advertisement no. 4 of 1985. The second writ petition was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991 (Vijoy Kishore Singh and others Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein prayer was made that their cases for appointment to the post of S.I. be considered. This writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 5.1.1993 (Annexure-6), with the observations that Advertisement 4 No.4 of 1985, was with respect to the period 1985-86, the panel prepared by the Board had become stale, and various other reasons. It was directed that the Board should issue a fresh advertisement. In view of this judgment, C.W.J.C. No. 2779 of 1991 was also dismissed by order dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure-7). 4. Contemporaneously, the State Government transferred the duties and functions of the Board to the Commission. On a review of the entire situation, the Commission sent its communication dated 31.10.1994 (Annexure-10), to the State Government that, in view of the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991, and the order in C.W.J.C. No. 2779 of 1991, it was not possible to make any further appointment from the panel prepared out of the selection process of Advertisement No.4 of 1985, otherwise it would be in violation of the two orders of this Court. Consequently, the petitioners have not been appointed leading to the present writ petition. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The greatest stumbling block in the way of the petitioners is the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991, which unmistakably directed that the panel prepared against Advertisement No.4 of 1985, had become quite old and directed for fresh advertisement. Therefore, C.W.J.C. 5 No.2779 of 1991, was also dismissed. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commission was right in forwarding its communication dated 31.10.1994 (Annexure-10), that in view of the judgments in the two writ petitions, it was not possible to make any further appointment out from the panel prepared in pursuance of Advertisement No.4 of 1985. It is obvious that the three writ petitions including the present one are with respect to the same advertisement. 6. The next difficulty in the way of the petitioners is that the position on account of passage of time has become far worse for them. Large number of appointments of S.Is. have been made by the Bihar Government ever since the judgments of this Court in the two writ petitions. It is now very difficult for us to direct the State Government to appoint those two petitioners, inter alia, in the absence of vacancies. 7. We must consider the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that one Samsuddin Ansari was appointed by the State Government from the panel prepared in pursuance of the same selection process. The contention has been answered by the Commission in paragraph 11 of its counter affidavit and is reproduced hereinbelow: “11. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has asserted that one Samsuddin Ansari was appointed from the said panel even after the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991. However, it is humbly submitted that the recommendation was sent in view of the order dated 13.3.1992, passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 959 of 1991, and the letter no.7872, dated 6 8.10.1993, issued by the Home (Police) Department. Similarly, reliance has been placed by the petitioner with regard to the appointment of one Birendra Kumar Pandey. It is humbly submitted that his name was also recommended in view of the order dated 31.10.90, passed in C.W.J.C. No.5573 of 1990. Thus it is clear that after the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991, not a single person has been recommended by the Commission at its own. However, in compliance of the courts order passed in different writ petitions, names of the above persons have been recommended. The petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis thereof in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.” It is thus evident that Samsuddin Ansari and Birendra Kumar Pandey were appointed, not on the volition of the Board or the State Government, but in due compliance and observance of specific orders of this Court in writ petitions filed by them. It must be stated in the same vein that the order in favour of Samsuddin Ansari was passed on 17.3.1992, and the order in favour of Birendra Kumar Pandey was passed on 31.10.1990, whereas this Court prohibited further appointment from the same panel by its judgment dated 5.1.1993 (Annexure-6), passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1991. In other words, Samsuddin Ansari and Birendra Kumar Pandey, had obtained orders of this Court before this Court passed the order directing fresh advertisement. 8. It is further relevant to state that, in view of the judgment in C.W.J.C. No.3280 of 1991, similar writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.8.1993 (Annexure C/1), passed in C.W.J.C. No.3640 of 7 1993 (Abdul Kalam and another Vs.The State of Bihar & ors.), and by order dated 2.8.1993 (Annexure-C/2), passed in C.W.J.C. No.3856 of 1991 (Shrimati Sushila Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others.) 9. Learned counsel for the Commission has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another vs. Raj Kishore Nanda and others, (2010) 6 SCC 777 (Paragraph no.16), wherein it is stated that such old panels should not be treated as a reservoir for future appointment. 10. To conclude the matter, the Commission and the State Government acted in full compliance of the judgment in C.W.J.C. No.3280 of 1991, prohibiting further appointment from that panel, having become old and directed for further advertisement. The three other writ petitions with similar prayer have also been dismissed by this Court. The cases of the petitioners had become far worse, really stale and beyond redemption, on account of passage of time, and can not be resusciated. The example cited by the petitioners regarding appointments of Samsuddin Ansari and Birendra Kuamr Pandey do not enure to the benefit of the petitioners for the reasons assigned hereinabove. A large number of appointments of S.Is. have been made by the State Government ever since Advertisement No.4 of 1985. In other words, no vacancy under category 04 is now left to be 8 filled up. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B.P. Verma, J. I agree. Patna High Court, Dated 27th September,2010 Vinay/ A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)