IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11198 of 2005 CHANDRIKA SHARMA, son of Late Deo Sharan Sharma, resident of village Kurre, P.S. Ghosi, District Jehanabad … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The District Collector, Jehanabad … Respondents ----------- 2. 18.1.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions directing the respondent authorities to grant promotion and pay scale of personal Assistant to collector since the date on which the petitioner was posted to the above said post on officiating basis and worked for a long period of 5 years, the petitioner further prays for quashing the resolution dated 5.4.2000 by which the name of one Kashinath Bhagat was recommended for the appointment at the said post by the Divisional Establishment Committee ignoring the eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for 2 granting him all the consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum in view of the settled principles of law enunciated by Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The petitioner alternatively prays for any other relief(s) for which this Hon‟ble Court may find the petitioner entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” Counsel for the State by filing a counter affidavit has placed the statutory rule envisaging appointment on the post of Personal Assistant to the Collector/ Deputy Commissioner, contained in the notification dated 28th January, 1978 (Annexure „A‟). It has also been explained in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was ultimately not selected for the post of P.A. to the Collector in Jehanabad District and therefore, current charge arrangement asking the petitioner to function for certain period as P.A. to the Collector would not him entitled to draw the salary of the post. It has also been clarified that the decision with regard to taking work of the post of P.A. to the Collector from amongst the 3 Deputy Collector was taken in keeping with the provision made in the statutory rules as also the Government circular dated 16.3.1990. In the opinion of this Court merely because the petitioner was allowed to hold the post of P.A. to Collector for certain period would not give any right to claim salary for the post especially when the petitioner was never appointed on substantive basis on the said post. That apart when on the recommendation made by the Collector, the petitioner was not even found fit by the Commissioner of the Division, the competent authority to take a decision on such recommendation, no error can be found in the selection of one Kashi Nath Bhagat for the post of P.A. to Collector specially when he has also not been impleaded as a party respondent in this writ application. Consequently this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 4