IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.978 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6233 of 2006 ====================================================== Mamta, wife of Ram Ishwar Kumar, resident of Village C/o Shree Ramu Pandit, Shree Tola, P.O. Head Post Office, Ara, P.S. Nawada, District Ara. (Bhojpur)-802 301 .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Old Sachiwalaya, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The In charge Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna-15. 4. The In charge Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar, Patna-15. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bisheshwar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, A.C. to G.A.-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 08-07-2011 Learned Advocate Mr. Bisheshwar Sinha appearing for the appellant is not present. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 9th November 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.6233 of 2006. The writ petition has been dismissed as it has become infructuous. Therefore, the present appeal. Patna High Court LPA No.978 of 2011 (2) dt.08-07-2011 2 The appellant filed above CWJC No.6233 of 2006 to challenge the inaction of the respondent Bihar Legislative Council in not responding to her application for selection and appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the Bihar Legislative Council. It appears that pursuant to an advertisement published on 11th February 2006, the appellant had applied for selection and appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the Bihar Legislative Council. She took competitive examination on 26th March 2006. Her grievance is that till date she has not been informed whether or not she has been selected. To us it appears that the grievance made by the appellant is totally misconceived. No vested right to selection and appointment has accrued to the petitioner merely because she applied for appointment and took competitive examination. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to gather information can not be entertained. No case of interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M.Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Patna High Court LPA No.978 of 2011 (2) dt.08-07-2011 3