IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10081 of 2010 Mukesh Kumar Mishra son of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, R.O.V Korut, P.S. Chandi, Dist-Nalanda. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Officer/Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 4. The Block Development Officer, Chandi, Nalanda Biharsharif. 5. The Block Development Officer, Chandi, Nalanda. ----------- 2 27.04.2011 Counter affidavit has been filed in this case and learned counsel for the respondents submits that case of the petitioner, that his name was included in the panel of 1997, was not found correct by the Collector. As per the case of the petitioner, his name was included in the panel at serial No. 377 for appointment on class-IV post as candidate from the list which was notified by the District Nazarat under the orders of the Collector through Memo No. 17 dated 21.01.1997 vide Annexure-2. On the basis of this the petitioner was asked to work on daily wage Annexure-3. It is the case of the petitioner that he continued till 2002 on daily wages whereafter his services were dispensed with and his name did not figure in final also. Accordingly, he moved this Court through C.W.J.C No. 13505 of 2002. This Court found that the petitioner did not get any right to continue as he was never absorbed or appointed in the manner prescribed. However, the court found that petitioner was entitled for restoration of his name in the panel at original serial and to be considered accordingly. Hence, by order dated 07.07.2009 as contained in Annexure- 9, the writ application was disposed of with a liberty to petitioner to approach the Collector, Nalanda for seeking relief for inclusion of his name in the 2 said panel of the year 1998. Petitioner accordingly, approached the Collector. The Collector has rejected his representation vide Annexure-1 by his order dated 02.03.2010, on the ground that in the panel of 1997 the name of the petitioner was not there and the 1997 panel contained names of the 259 candidates only, which is under challenge in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with his representation petitioner had produced the photocopies of the said panel enclosed with the memo No. 17 dated 21.01.1997 issued under the orders of the then Collector, Nalanda. He submits that petitioner had also produced the letter, as contained in Annexure-3 issued by the Nazarat Dy. Collector on 24.01.1998, which shows that on the basis of his name in the panel, petitioner was engaged on daily wages. He submits that the other supporting documents were also enclosed with the representation. However, the Collector, Nawada has not look into those documents and only after looking to the register in which the names of the candidates only upto 259 serial were entered till 08.10.1996, he has held that the name of the petitioner was not in the panel. It is apparent that the Collector, Nalanda has not applied his mind to the actual claim of the petitioner and has misdirected himself. First, in the order of this Court itself it was mentioned that the petitioner was to represent for restoration of his name in the panel at its original seniority of the year 1998. Secondly, the memo No. 17 dated 21.01.1997 was in respect of the panel which was being prepared in the year 1997. It is common knowledge that after the panel is finally 3 prepared and notified, the same remains valid for the next year, for filling up of the vacancies being available in that year. Therefore, this panel, although notified by the said Memo No. 17 dated 21.01.1997, was in fact a penal in respect of the year 1998 and not 1997. Petitioner may have committed the mistake in mentioning the register number etc., but the fact remains that along with his representation, photocopies of the said memo as well as the said letter and others supporting documents were enclosed and made available to the Collector to establish that the petitioner was included in a penal and on the basis of that he was engaged on daily wages. In the circumstances Collector ought not to have become too technical and ought to have look into the supporting documents annexed with the writ application and verified the genuineness of the same and would have come to a conclusion with regard to inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel of 1998 as notified by the said memo No. 17 dated 21.01.1997. The Collector has failed to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter. As a result, this writ application is allowed the order of Collector as contained as Annexure-1 is quashed. He is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh and particularly the supporting documents enclosed with the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with clear findings in respect of the documents and the claim of the petitioner. Prakash ( Jayanandan Singh, J.)