IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11131 of 2005 MANISH KUMAR, son of Mahendra Prasad Rai, resident of Mohalla Janki Nagar/ Hanuman Nagar/ Patrakar Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment) Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna 5. The Under Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 2. 18.1.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This C.W.J.C. application is being filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents for appointment of the petitioner above named of this vacant post of Librory attendant (Pustokalay Anuchar)as per the advertisement No. 01/2003 in Bihar Bidhan Sabha (Bihar Legislative Assembly) Patna and the petitioner applied for the same post.” From the reading of the writ application it becomes clear that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Library Attendant in Bihar Legislative 2 Assembly and that all the vacancies got filled up by the appointment of the candidates who were placed above the petitioner in the panel. It is only after expiry of the life of the panel that the appointment of a person, namely, Rina Kumari, was cancelled by the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly whereafter the petitioner is said to have raised a claim for his appointment on the ground that as he was next candidate in the panel, he should have been appointed. This Court would find that once the selection process in respect of Advertisement No. 1/ 2003 was completed and the persons placed above the petitioner in the panel were appointed by filling all the existing vacancies, there would be no question of any appointment of the petitioner if one of such filled up post later on become vacant. Such vacancy on account of termination of service of one of the appointed candidate is not comparable to a vacancy on account of non-joining of a selected candidate and cannot be a ground for appointment of the petitioner as the 3 life of the panel got exhausted and infact had lapsed on filling up all the vacancies. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/