IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4721 of 2009 SIRAJUDDIN ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02- 16.4.2009 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner, Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned AAG IV, and Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan for respondent nos. 7 to 9. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.3 to release the petitioner enabling him to join the post of Consultant – Land Development in the Infrastructure Development Authority. It appears that the State Government has constituted an undertaking known as Infrastructure Development Authority headed by an Administrator of a Board of Directors comprising of the Chief Secretary and certain other departmental Secretaries of the Government of Bihar. The Authority had issued an advertisement which had appeared in the local dailies on 8.12.2008 (Annexure 1), inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the Consultant – Land Development. The petitioner is a serving Deputy Secretary of the Bihar Government and was an applicant. He was invited for interview by communication dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure 2). He was selected by the Authority. By communication dt. 7.2.2009 (Annexure 3), respondent no.3 was requested to release him so that he may join the post in question. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the Department did not release him, and has instead appointed respondent no.10, vide notification dt. 19.2.2009 (Annexure 5). He further submits that he was so selected after a detailed selection procedure, and has been - 2 - found fit for the post. Respondent no.10 was never an applicant, was never subjected to the selection process, notwithstanding which he has been appointed. 2. Respondent nos. 1 to 6 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 9 has also supported the impugned action. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner, who is a serving Deputy Secretary in the Bihar Government, had applied and appeared for the interview without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. Apart from the position that such conduct falls foul of the provisions of rule -16 of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules 1976, he deprived the department of informing the Authority of the correct state of affairs. After respondent no.3 became aware of the same, he forwarded the departmental communication no.2125, dt. 23.3.2009 (Annexure B), to the Authority, informing that the petitioner had so appeared without seeking prior permission of the department, and also that he is facing a criminal trial, wherein charge-sheet has been submitted against him and sanction for prosecution has been accorded. The prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner for his acts of omission and commission when he had functioned as Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda. We are, therefore, convinced that the petitioner has not been released for valid reasons. The impugned order cannot be faulted. - 3 - Once it is found that the petitioner’s selection has been countermanded for valid reasons, he has no Locus Standi to challenge the selection of a third person. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl