IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 9608 of 2010 1. PARMANAND SINGH, S/O LATE RAJ KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BALIARI, P.O. AND P.S. HASUA,DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER CUM DISTRICT NAGART DY. COLLECTOR, NAWADA. With CWJC No. 12222 of 2010 1. SHANKAR KUMAR S/O LATE BARHO SAW R/O MOHALLA- AKAUNA BAZAR, P.S.- MUFASSIL NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA 2. DINESH KUMAR S/O LATE DEVENDRA PRASAD R/O VILL.- PATHRA ENGLISH, P.S.- MUFASSIL NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA 3. SANJAY PRASAD S/O SRI HARI KRISHNA PRASAD R/O VILL.- JHUNATHI, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADA 4. UMESH PANDIT S/O LATE LAKHAN PANDIT R/O VILL.- PATHRA ENGILISH, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- PATNA 5. RAM BALI KUMAR S/O SRI RAM DEO PRASAD R/O VILL.- USHARI, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADA 6. RAM BHAJU RAM S/O LATE JAGESHWAR RAM R/O VILL.- KIKANDERPUR, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADA 7. RAMBILASH PRASAD S/O SRI BALDEO PRASAD R/O VILL.- HARISH CHAND BIGHA, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 5. THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN I.E. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DISTT.- NAJARAT, NAWADA With 2 CWJC No. 9563 of 2010 1. KAILASH MANDAL, S/O SRI BANBARI MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE KADHAR,P.S. KAUAKOLE , DISTRICT - NAWADA. 2. MAHESH KUMAR, S/O SRI RAJENDRA RAM, R/O VILLAGE- BUDHAUL, P.S. NAWADA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 3. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O SRI MUNSHI PANDIT, R/O VILLAGE CHORBAR, P.S. NAWADA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 4. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE SHIBA MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE KENAR, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT- GAYA. 5. KISHORE KUMAR, S/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD YADAV, R/O VILLAGE MOSTANGANJ, P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 6. GHANSHYAM KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM RATAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE FATEHPUR, P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 7. SUBODH KUMAR, S/O SRI NARESH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE KUNAUL, P.S. NARHAT, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 8. MD. ILYAS ANSARI, S/O LATE NOOR MOHAMMAD, R/O MOHALLA- ANSARNAGAR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- NAWADA. 9. MD. MANSOOR ALAM, S/O MD.SALIM, R/O VILLAGE KHANPUR, P.S. HASUA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 5. DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN I.E. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT NAJARAT, NAWADA. ----------- 4 26.04.2011 It appears that for appointment on class-IV post in the field offices of the Government, Government issued circulars from time to time. The first circular no.8160 was issued on 21.06.1966. This provided for appointment on class-IV post through the 3 Employment Exchange. Thereafter, another circular was issued as contained in letter no.16441 dated 03.12.1980 which changed the procedure to issue of advertisement and preparation of panel. The panel had to be prepared yearwise and the applicants who were found eligible had to be included in the same for appointment on identified vacancies of that year. Since the life of the panel was only one year the candidates who were left out from that panel had a grievance. Accordingly, by letter no. 3577 dated 25.04.1997 a clarification was issued. In this letter, it was provided that the persons, who were left out from the earlier panel, had to be listed above in the panel of the next year on the basis of seniority. Thus, in effect the panel became a continued panel by adding new applicants every year in seriatim at the bottom. In the district of Nawada, the panel was published in 2004 from which appointments were made. Petitioners were applicants and their names were included in the panel. Their grievance is that the candidates empanelled below them have been appointed, whereas they have been left out. The stand of the respondents is that the life 4 of the panel was only one year and, therefore, the petitioners could not claim appointment on the basis of 2004 panel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the left out candidates had to be added in the panel in the subsequent year at the top, they had to be treated as senior to the new candidates who were included in the panel in the subsequent year. Hence before appointing the candidates who were below in the panel whose names were included in the panel for the first time, the left out candidates of the previous year, had to be included in the panel above and had to be given appointment first. Some writ application were filed in this Court and learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order dated 28.06.2010 passed in CWJC No.666 of 2010 wherein directions were issued to appoint the petitioners from the panel prepared pursuant to advertisement issued in 2004. Technically, the respondents may be right that the life of the panel is only one year. But, in view of the fact that the Government issued a clarification in 1997 that the left out candidates of previous 5 panel had to be given seniority in the new panel, it is apparent that the panel became a continued panel by including the names of new applicants at the bottom every year. This being the position, since petitioners were empanelled earlier and have not been appointed they get a preferential right to be included in the subsequent panel at the top and to be considered for appointment in preference to the fresh candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after 2004 no new panel has been prepared by the authorities of the Nawada district and only the names of fresh applicants are being included at the bottom and the same panel continues and candidates empanelled are being appointed from time to time from the same. Learned counsel has also produced orders of the District Education Officer, Nawada issued in July and August, 2010 to show that candidates from the same panel are being appointed by the respondents in accordance with their seniority. That being the position, the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their candidature for appointment on class-IV posts taking into account their seniority in the 6 panel and in preference to the new candidates who may be empanelled below them or included in the panel in later years. The petitioner of CWJC No. 9608 of 2010 claims himself to be a disable candidate and claims his appointment under that category. It is not disputed that in the process of appointment on class-IV post also the provisions of reservation for different categories are followed. In the circumstances, the writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in their respective categories for their appointment, if they are otherwise eligible, in the light of their ranking in the panel and in preference to the candidates who may have been included in the panel later on. The cases of the petitioners shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)