IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5132 of 2009 RANJAY KUMAR AMBAST . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kr. Verma, Adv. For Respondent No.1 to 4: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C. 16. ----------- 3/ 28/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. As prayed, permission is granted to implead the Registrar General, Patna High Court as party respondent. The petitioner seeks the relief for declaration of his results at the viva voce examination that he appeared on 26.5.2008 for appointment as a Stenographer under the District & Sessions Judge, Katihar in pursuance of his having been successful in the typing/dictation test. Advertisement No.1/03 was published for five posts of clerks in the regular court and three posts of Stenographers in the Fast Track Courts. The petitioner was an applicant in the latter category. It is not in controversy that he competed in the dictation/typing test as also in the interview and that his name figured at Serial No.3 of the panel. Thereafter, in pursuance of directions by this Court to cancel the entire appointments no appointment has been made on the post - 2 - of Stenographers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has obtained information under the Right to Information Act that in pursuance of the said advertisement the five posts of Clerks have been filled up. He submits that if the reason for not making appointment of Stenographers under the same advertisement is alleged violation of any Rules regulating selection and appointment, the same infirmity shall apply to the appointments made on the post of Clerks. Not to annul the appointment of Clerks and only of Stenographers was meting out discriminatory treatment to the petitioner and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The next submission is that it shall not suffice just to say that the Rules have been violated. The specific Rules alleged to have been violated must be spelt out. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the entire selection has been cancelled nothing more survives and the petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment. The law stands well settled that mere empanelment creates no vested rights to claim appointment. Notwithstanding the selection process and the preparation of a panel till the appointment is not - 3 - actually made, it is open for the employer to take an appropriate decision at his discretion not to fill up the vacancies. Since no right accrues to the selected candidate for appointment, he cannot question the decision of the employer not to go ahead with the appointments. This becomes more onerous when the ground is of procedural violations in selection. The Court shall not go into the sufficiency of the reason. Had the respondents put forth no ground not to go ahead with the select list, the matter may have been different. In the present case, the entire selection of the three Stenographers empanelled has been cancelled for violation of procedures. Had the other two persons been appointed and then the petitioner was sought to be discriminated by denial of appointment for alleged violation of Rules, matters may again have been different. The question of discrimination arises between equals. There is no question of discrimination between unequals. The posts of Clerks and the Stenographers are completely different, the nature of the duties of the two are different, the qualifications are different, the selection process is different. The appointment of Clerks was for regular posts. The appointment of Stenographers was for the Fast Track Courts. The latter is funded directly by the Central Government for specified durations while the - 4 - former is funded at the State Level. The two stand in entirely different category. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)