IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2964 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 18.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, a daily wager, came to this Court in CWJC No. 8011 of 2000 when this Court directed that any appointment on Grade IV can be made by open advertisement and selection etc. The respondents published Advertisement No. 1/2004 in which his name did not figure in the panel when he represented aggrieved by the same. His objection has been rejected by order dated 7.11.2008 confirming the provisional panel prepared on 6.6.2008. The petitioner is aggrieved by fresh advertisement published by the respondents dated 16.7.2009/10.7.2009 reviving the aforesaid panel prepared in 2008-2009 for the years 2009-2010 for filling up the remaining vacancies under the aforesaid advertisement. Learned Counsel for the State finds it difficult to convince this Court that a panel can have a life beyond one year contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It stands settled that normally any panel prepared for appointment is valid for a period of one year only. This has been considered proper to enable the persons who did not succeed earlier or who may have become eligible subsequently also to apply. The action of the respondents by the impugned publication seeking to revive the panel of the year 2008-2009 for filling up the vacancy by giving it a nomenclature of revived panel for 2009-2010 is not sustainable in law and is held to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A penal of 2008-2009 lost its effect from one year after its preparation on 7.11.2008. It cannot be revived for filling up the vacancy of Advertisement no. 1/2004 in the year 2009-2010. If vacancy remained, they can only be subject of fresh advertisement where all eligible including the petitioner may apply when they shall have to be considered afresh in accordance with law. The responsibility lies at the door of the respondents for not completing the process of appointment in time. While doing so the respondents are required to consider the issue of age relaxation in accordance with law, experience qualification etc. for persons like the petitioner. This writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)