IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.913 of 2010 IN CWJC 2958 of 2007 WITH I.A. NO. 5044 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.913 of 2010 ============================================== RAJIV RANJAN PRASAD S/O LATE ADYA PRASAD R/O HOUSE NO.-A/138, HOUSING COLONY, P.O.+P.S.- KANKARBAG, DISTT.- PATNA, BIHAR AND AT PRESENT ARCHIVIST, REGIONAL ARCHIVES OFFICE, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT AND CO- ORDINATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT AND CO- ORDINATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. SRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SRI RAM LAKHAN PRASAD SINGH R/O HOUSE NO.-301, ANANT VIKAS APARTMENT, RUKUNPURA, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA, BIHAR AND AT PRESENT DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, BIHAR, PATNA ============================================= Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. SHIVAJEE PANDEY, Sr. Advocate Mr. AJEET KUMAR For the Respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4: Mr. BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINHA, G.P. 3 For the B.P.S.C. :Mr. SANJAY PANDEY ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 03. 08.09.2010 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent 2 is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 19th November 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 2958 of 2007. The matter at dispute is the appointment of one Dr. Vijay Kumar, Director of Archives. At first the appellant-writ petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 2958 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief to consider his case for appointment as Director of Archives. Pending the petition the respondent no. 5 Dr. Vijay Kumar was appointed as Director of Archives. Since the appointment of the respondent no. 5, the petitioner moved Interlocutory Application No. 2557 of 2009 for amendment to the writ petition to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 5. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and the Interlocutory Application for amendment and dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and order dated 19th November 2009. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. It may be noted that earlier the Bihar Public Service Commission selected and recommended the name of the respondent no. 5 Dr. Vijay Kumar for appointment as Director of Archives. The recommendation was not acceptable to the State Government. According to the State Government the said Dr. Vijay Kumar did not qualify for appointment as Director of Archives. Feeling aggrieved Dr. Vijay Kumar filed C.W.J.C. No. 2631 of 2005. The said C.W.J.C. No. 2631 of 2005 was 3 allowed by this Court (Coram: Barin Ghosh, J., as he then was) on 21st August 2006. The Court was pleased to hold that Dr. Vijay Kumar was eligible for appointment as Director of Archives and issued direction to the State Government to accept the recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The said judgment was challenged by the State Government in Letters Patent Appeal No. 153 of 2007. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed on 25th November 2008. Thus the Division Bench of this Court held Dr. Vijay Kumar to be eligible for appointment as Director of Archives. We are informed at the bar that the said judgment has become final and that the State Government has, in compliance with the direction issued by the High Court, appointed Dr. Vijay Kumar as the Director of Archives. The present appellant had also challenged the appointment of Dr. Vijay Kumar as Director of Archives on the ground that he was not eligible for appointment as such. In view of the aforesaid two judgments of this Court one in the writ petition and the other in the Letters Patent Appeal the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the challenge to the appointment of Dr. Vijay Kumar. Feeling aggrieved the writ-petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandey has appeared for the appellant. He has vehemently argued that though the writ petition in the same subject matter was filed by the appellant, as 4 the appellant was unaware of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 153 of 2007, the appellant had no opportunity to present his case before the Division Bench. Since the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 153 of 2007, the appellant also filed Civil Review No. 8 of 2009 for review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25th November 2008. Nevertheless, he withdrew the same with a view to challenging the appointment of Dr. Vijay Kumar in appropriate proceeding. Thereafter the appellant moved for amendment to the writ petition as recorded hereinabove. Mr. Pandey has submitted that having regard to the eligibility criteria as set out in the advertisement Dr. Vijay Kumar cannot be said to be eligible for appointment as Director of Archives. Be that as it may, as recorded hereinabove the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court have held Dr. Vijay Kumar to be eligible for appointment as Director of Archives. We have no reason to disagree with the judgments of this Court. Learned Advocate has not been able to make out a case which would justify reference to a larger Bench. For the aforesaid reason the Appeal is dismissed in limine. I.A. No. 5044 of 2010 stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)