IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 167 of 2011 In CWJC No. 5132 of 2009 ==================================================== Ranjay Kumar Ambast, son of Sri Kumareshwar Prasad Lal, resident of Mohalla – Gandhi Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Katihar, Dist. – Katihar …...…. Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The District and Sessions Judge, Katihar through its Registrar, 3. The Appointment Committee, the District & Sessions Court, Katihar, 4. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna ………………….Respondents / Respondents. =================================================== APPEARANCE For the appellant: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay and Mrs. Meeta Sinha, Advocates. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 04.02.2011. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 28.10.2010 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 5132 of 2009. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2003 for selection and appointment of three Stenographers under the District & Sessions Judge, Katihar, the appellant – writ petitioner had applied for selection and appointment as Stenographer. According to the appellant, he had secured qualifying marks at the written examination and was also 2 called for oral interview. The Appointment Committee of the District prepared a panel of three successful Stenographers including the appellant and forwarded the same to the High Court for approval on 05.06.2008. Since the appointment did not materialise, he filed above CWJC No. 5132 of 2009. The writ petition was contested by the District Court, Katihar. The Judge Incharge, Administration filed the counter affidavit and stated that under the instruction of the High Court issued on 04.08.2010 the selection procedure of Stenographers under the District - Katihar was cancelled. The communication indicates that there were certain procedural lapses in the selection procedure; therefore, the decision was taken to cancel the selection. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant had no indefeasible right to appointment. As the entire select list was cancelled, no discriminatory treatment was meted to the appellant. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the entire selection process was completed. The procedure was monitored by the High Court. A duly constituted Appointment Committee having prepared a panel of three successful candidates there was no reason for the High Court to cancel the selection procedure. We do agree with the learned single Judge that by mere selection no indefeasible right to appointment was accrued to the appellant. It may further be noted that the 3 appellant was not yet selected. As the selection made by the Appointment Committee was not approved by the High Court, the selection procedure was not complete. In absence of any fundamental or statutory right to appointment accrued to the appellant, we agree with the learned single Judge that the appellant had no indefeasible right to appointment. We see no merits in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )