IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.954 of 2006 Kedar Ram, S/o Badri Ram, resident of village Bhartu, P.S. Ghosi, District-Jehanabad, …. … Petitioner/ Appeal Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2. Secretary Department of Home Police (Government of Bihar) Old Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar Old Secretariate, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Head Quarter Old Secretariate, Patna 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration Bihar, Patna). ….. ….. Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. A. Amanullah, Standing Counsel-XVII Mr. A.K.Prasad, J.C to SC XVII ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 29th September, 2008 The senior counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the controversy raised in the present appeal is identical to the case of Chandrabhushan Kumar Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, (LPA No.430 of 1999). 2. The government counsel submits that the appeal preferred by Chandrabhushan Kumar Singh & Ors has been dismissed by this court on 07th December, 2007. A copy thereof has been annexed with - 2 - the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 in the appeal. 3. The consideration of the matter by the Division Bench in the case of Chandrabhushan Kumar Singh is thus: “An advertisement was published by the Police Department of the State inviting applications for appointment to the post of Constable Drivers. The advertisement suggested that there are 118 vacancies. The said advertisement was responded by many. Appellants are some of them. Upon such response, the eligible respondees underwent selection process. Thereupon a list of selected candidates was prepared. Appellants were amongst those acknowledged selected persons. After the selection was completed, appropriate recommendation was made for appointing the selected candidates in order of their merit. However, none of the appellants was appointed. The appellants, thus, approached this court by the filing writ petition seeking a mandamus to complete the selection process by issuing appointment letters. During the pendency of the writ petition the advertisement was cancelled. The reason to cancel the advertisement and the selection pursuant to the advertisement was furnished in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition. It was stated in the counter affidavit that in terms of the Rules governing the subject recruitment there was no vacancy which could be filled in by inviting applications as was done by issuing the subject advertisement. 2. The subject recruitment is governed by Rule 1186 contained in Bihar Police Manual as clarified by Police Order no.182-85. Whereas Rule 1186 of the Manual deals with Drivers to be appointed in the District Level, it does not deal with Drivers to be appointed at the Headquarters level. The said Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Drivers to be appointed in the district level must be an existing constable. Police Order 182-85 did not alter the situation governed by Rule 1186 of the Manual, but clarified that drivers at the Transport Headquarters may be appointed from outside the existing Constable, i.e. by open invitation. It was the contention of the respondents in their counter affidavit that due to mistake District level vacancies had been advertised for being filled up by open category candidates contrary to the Rules governing the subject recruitments and as such the advertisement as well as selection pursuant thereto had to be cancelled. 3. The one and the only question, therefore, that cropped up for consideration was whether, in fact, the vacancies, as were advertised, were of District level or of transport - 3 - Headquarters level. This aspect of the matter had not been gone in details while the writ petition was dealt with by the order impugned in the present appeal. We, therefore, wanted the respondents in this appeal to satisfy us by facts and figures that, in fact, all these vacancies, as were advertised, were of the district level by filing appropriate affidavits before us. The respondents have satisfied us that all such vacancies were of district level. That being the position, the vacancies, as were advertised, could not be filled up by persons outside existing constables and, accordingly, the advertisement itself and the selection pursuant to the advertisements were contrary to the Rules governing the subject recruitments. 4. The appellants were selected for being appointed to posts which have been reserved by a Rule made for existing constables. The appellants were not existing constables. They could not be selected for the said posts. Being selected and on the basis of such selection being recommended did not vest any right to be appointed in favour of the appellants. In those circumstances, by the order appealed against, a learned single Judge of this Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition and there is no scope for interference in the matter by us.” 4. For the self same reason, this Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil