IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18318 of 2009 1. RAJESH MISHRA S/O LATE GIRJANAND PRASAD R/O VILL- BHATAPUR (NARANGA SOUTH), P.S- BELA, P.O- NARGA, DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SITAMARHI, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PARIHAR, DISTT- SITAMARHI 6. GRAM PANCHAYAT SUPERVISOR CUM NODAL OFFICER, PARIHAR BLOCK, DISTT- SITAMARHI 7. SARPANCH, GRAM KACHERI, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, NARANGA WEST, DITT- SITAMARHI 8. GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, NARANGA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BLOCK- PARIHAR, DISTT- SITAMARHI 9. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAM EKBAL THAKUR R/O VILL- BHATPUR, P.O-NARANGA, P.S- BELA, DITT- SITAMARHI ----------- 2. 19.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner and respondent no. 9 were applicants for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchahri, Naranga South. Another person figured at serial no. 1 of the panel but did not join and hence is not relevant to the controversy. The petitioner was at serial no. 2, while respondent no. 9 was at serial no. 3 of the panel. A person whose name merely figures in a panel, does not have a vested right to appointment. Simultaneously there can be no arbitrary denial of 2 appointment, except for valid and cogent reasons, especially when the person questioning acquires the status of the first serial of the panel. The merit position of the panel has to be followed in making the appointment, unless there be valid reasons for deviation. The residence certificate of the petitioner is alleged to have been subsequently cancelled and which apparently appears to be the reason to deny him appointment in preference to respondent no. 9. The petitioner has questioned the cancellation of his residence certificate in C.W.J.C. No. 1186 of 2008 and which is presently pending. In that circumstance, this Court finds no error in the order dated 10.6.2009 of the Additional Collector. This Court is fully satisfied that it adequately protects the interest of the petitioner and makes the appointment of respondent no. 9 conditional to the result of C.W.J.C. No. 1186 of 2008. No further directions are required except to reiterate that from the impugned order itself the appointment of respondent no. 9 is precarious in nature. If the cancellation of the residence 3 certificate of the petitioner is found to be not in accordance with law, the consequential effect mentioned in the order sought to be impugned of the Additional Collector, has to be given full effect by the respondents themselves. In the event the petitioner is unsuccessful in his challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 1186/2008 the order impugned shall require no interference. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)