IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1540 of 2009 Murli Kumar Chaudhary . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 04.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Police Driver under Advertisement No. 4 of 2004. He was selected and placed in the merit list dated 16.6.2005. However, there was some discrepancy in his name on the driving licence produced by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that there was no difference in the parentage and it was a mere typographical error. The respondents on 25.2.2006 granted him time to have the defect rectified. The petitioner obtained a fresh driving licence with his correct name but it was submitted on 5.3.2006, a week later than the original time granted. There were 30 vacancies advertised. Only 9 persons had been appointed. The respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. The delay in submission of the rectified driving licence was minimum. Appointment still not forthcoming, he filed this writ application on 29.1.2009. The respondents acknowledged his selection but contend that his driving licence bore the name Murari Kumar Choudhary against the applicant’s name 2 Murli Kumar Choudhary. Nine candidates came to be appointed. The petitioner did not produce his rectified driving licence within time. He had a right to be considered for appointment which has been done. The lapse lay with the petitioner himself. The merit list dated 16.6.2005 had a life of one year only. If the petitioner had rectified the defect in his driving licence, it was for him to approach this Court within the life of the merit panel or even soon thereafter within reasonable time. The petitioner having rectified the defect in his driving licence on 5.3.2006, slept over the matter till December, 2008 when he filed the present writ application. He therefore allowed the merit list to loose its efficacy in law. Any direction to consider his case today shall be resurrecting and reviving the merit list which no more exists in law. In (2009) 2 SCC 706 (Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan), it has been held at Paragraph-16 as follows:- “16. Furthermore, the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether the validity of the said select list was extended or not is not known. Extension of select list must be done in accordance with law. Apart from a bald statement made in the list of dates that the validity of the said 3 select list had been extended, no document in support thereof has been placed before us.” It cannot be lost sight of the fact that in between 16.6.2006 when the merit list lost its efficacy in law and till December, 2008 when the writ petition was filed, much less till today when the writ petition is being heard, a whole new work force has become eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Driver. Merely because the petitioner has filed the writ petition belatedly it shall be highly unfair and gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution to direct consideration of the case of the petitioner on a panel which no more existed in law ignoring the claim of those who have become eligible to be considered in the meantime. It shall be giving an advantage to the petitioner for his own lapses. He has already acknowledged the error in his driving licence. Had he been more careful when he applied for the job and had ensured submission of a driving licence with his correct name, he may not have found himself in the present predicament. The submission of a defective driving licence or the indolence on his part in not pursuing matters timely allowing third party interest to arise for consideration in accordance with the Constitutional mandate, the Court finds it difficulty to uphold his claim for consideration. To that extent, there 4 is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner has filed a representation and the respondents may be directed to dispose the same. In view of the findings on merit arrived at by the Court in law, it is not possible for the Court to give any positive directions for disposal of his representation. If the petitioner so desires he may pursue his representation but any fresh orders passed therein shall not create a fresh cause of action in him to agitate the same before a Court of law in view of the fact that the Court has found no merit in this writ application. The Court leaves the petitioner to his fate on the representation. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)