IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1649 of 2008 NEELAM PANDIT, daughter of Nageshwar Pandit, resident of village- Horma, P.S.-Khizarsarai, District-Gaya. ...........Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 6. The Block Development Officer, Khizersarai, Gaya. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khizersarai, Gaya. ----------- 2/ 24.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Prakhand Teacher, as she was selected for appointment, under the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006. Petitioner’s case is that posts were advertised. Petitioner also applied for the post and participated in the selection process. Though her name was not in the first, second, third and fourth merit list but finally she was included in the 4th supplementary selection list, against the vacancy in the category of Extremely Backward Class (Female). Despite, her selection, appointment letter has not been issued, although, nine posts are lying vacant. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, where it has been admitted that petitioner’s name did find place in the 4th supplementary selection list but, the list was not 2 approved by the Selection Committee, as it was prepared without following established prescribed procedure under 2006 rules. It is also stated that as per the direction of the authorities of the Human Resources Development Department, no appointments could have been made after 30.11.2007 posts which remained vacant after that date, were to be included in the 2nd phase of appointment to be made under 2008 rules. Considering these facts, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed, for the reason that selection process was not observed properly and beyond the last appointed date no appointment letters could have been issued against posts which remained vacant. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)