IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11136 of 2001 JIYA LAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- CWJC No.6661 of 2002 LAKSHMAN RAM & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- CWJC No.2238 of 2002 KAMAL MANJHI & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Shiva Jee Pandey, Sr.Advocate & Mr.Braj Nandan Tiwary, Advocate For the State : - Mr. A.K. Choagdar, Advocate 4 23-09-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved because the authorities of Muzaffarpur District are not making appointment to Class-IV posts under the Collectorate and thereby they have deprived persons like the petitioners of getting appointment under the State as per reservation policy made to benefit the persons of reserved category such as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Petitioners are members of Scheduled Caste. The legal position is clear. Panel in which the petitioners claim to be included in the year 1994 lost its validity after one year. The latter panels whose details are not available with the petitioners also appear to have lost their validity. If the employer is not making - 2 - appointment, a panelist cannot claim legal right of appointment. Only when appointments are made, the rules of reservation or rules of fairness will be attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has plainly hinted that posts meant for Scheduled Castes have been perpetually given to other categories and no appointment is, therefore, being made in an open manner. For this submission there is no sufficient data on the record of the case and the issue involved will be beyond the scope of adversary litigation between a person deprived of his legal rights and the State. In the facts of the case learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions with a liberty that after collecting sufficient information and data if the petitioners find good grounds to do so, they may prefer appropriate proceeding for redressal of their latter grievance. In the facts of the case the prayer to withdraw these writ petitions is allowed and the same are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Naresh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)