IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5820 of 2008 Dr. Indra Ballabh Jha, Son of Late Tara Kant Jha, aged about 44 years, Resident of Village Mahiya, Police Station Sakatpur, District Darbhanga………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The V.C., Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56-57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058. 2. The Pro Vice-Chancellor, Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56- 57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058. 3. The Registrar, Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56-57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110 058. 4. The Deputy Registrar (Finance), Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56- 57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058. 5. The Managing Committee, through its Chairman, Raj Kumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith, Kolhanta Patori, Darbhanga (Bihar). 6. The Principal, Raj Kumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith, Kolhanta Patori, Darbhanga (Bihar). 7. The Union of India through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 8. The Under Secretary, (Secondary and Higher Education Department) Human Resources Development Department, Government of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi………………………………………………………….…….Respondents ------------------- For Petitioner: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Brishketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Kr. Jha, Advocate Nos. 1 to 4. 6 29.08.2011 It appears that date of order no.3 has wrongly been typed as “11.08.2011” instead of “11.07.2011”. 2 Let order no.3 be treated to have been passed on “11.07.2011” instead of “11.08.2011”. I.A. No.4998 of 2001 At the time of filing of this writ application, the order of Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as “the Sansthan”) dated 21.01.2008, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and follow-up order issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee of Raj Kumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith (hereinafter referred to as “the College”) dated 23.01.2008 were not brought on record. The stand of the petitioner is that he was not in know of the said orders as they were not served on him. Hence, this writ application was filed only with a prayer to accept his joining. Those orders became available to him only upon service of a counter affidavit on his learned counsel. Hence, this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge those orders also. 3 The interlocutory application is allowed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the said orders which are Annexures A/2 and A/1, respectively with the counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Short facts of the case are that, in response to an advertisement, petitioner applied, and was called for interview, to be held on 14.12.2007, for selection and appointment as Lecturer (Vyakaran) in the College on regular basis. After the interview, a panel was prepared of the eligible candidates in which petitioner was placed at the third position. The person, who was first in the panel, was appointed on the post. Subsequently, the person, who was appointed on the post, was made the Head of the Department. Hence, the Sansthan issued some letter appointing the second person in the panel on the post of Lecturer. He having not joined, the Chairman of the Governing Body issued 4 appointment letter on 19.01.2008 appointing petitioner on the post, vide Annexure-4. The Sansthan came to know about this and issued the impugned letter dated 23.01.2008 (Annexure-A/2) directing the Chairman of the Managing Committee to withdraw the same as approval had been accorded for appointment of the second candidate from the panel. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Managing Committee, by the impugned order dated 21.01.2008, (Annexure-A/1) withdrew the order dated 19.01.2008. Thus, appointment of petitioner, on the vacancy arising on account of transfer of the first incumbent appointed from the panel, was cancelled within four days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the second person in the panel, whose name was approved by the Sansthan, had not joined, petitioner, being the third in the panel, had right to be appointed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that appointment of petitioner was illegal as his name was 5 not approved by the Sansthan, nor he could be appointed from the said panel as the panel itself had exhausted after appointment of first incumbent. It is a settled law that after the vacancies advertised are filled up from a panel, the panel gets exhausted and if anyone, who was appointed from the panel, subsequently resigns or is transferred as a result of which post becomes vacant, the same has to be treated as fresh vacancy, for which fresh process of appointment has to be started. Since the first incumbent, after his appointment and joining on the post, had subsequently been made Head of the Department, the post had become vacant again. Hence, vacancy of the said post had to be treated as a fresh vacancy and had to be filled up by initiating a fresh process for appointment in accordance with law. Clearly, neither the second incumbent whose name was approved by the Sansthan could be appointed nor petitioner could be appointed against the said vacancy as the panel stood exhausted with 6 appointment and joining of the first incumbent on the post. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that he should have been appointed on the post falling vacant subsequently again from the old panel itself. As a result, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)