IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3468 of 2011 Raj Bansh Dubey son of Sri Sita Ram Dubey, resident of Village-Q. No. E3-3, Road No. 6 D, Sadhanapuri, Gardanibagh, Patna. ........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Bihar Rural Development Society, Patna. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rural Development Society, Patna. ........Respondents ----------- 04 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a claimant for appointment on the post of Panchayat Technical Assistant, under Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar. This is a post which is filled up on the basis of contract. Advertisement was issued in the year 2007, calling for applications from people having technical knowledge for such appointment. Merit list was prepared and appointments made, in which petitioner did not make it. A second round of invitation was issued on 22.08.2010 in terms of Annexure-2, when respondents realized that many a vacancy is still subsisted. Instead of going through an exercise of conducting a fresh examination, decided to draw from the pool of talent from the short listed candidates, on the basis of initial examination held in the year 2007. Widest publicity through newspaper was given in the State and all those who gave their consent came to be appointed. Petitioner is before the Court raising a grievance that he 2 had 228 marks and persons, with lesser marks have come to be appointed ignoring his claim. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of respondents, circumstances under which a decision to make appointments from the left over candidates came to be taken has been explained. Based on such a decision, advertisement was issued and information was given to the candidates through newspapers. Only those persons, who respond to the advertisement, came to be appointed on contract. Response was to be given online. Petitioner never responded, therefore, was not appointed. The next limb of submission of the counsel is that since the petitioner had gone out of the State after having failed to gain employment within the State he had no information about the decision as newspaper publication was confined to the State. This prevented him from making an application online, staking his claim. These appointments were to be made at the local level with a fixed objective and are not substantive appointments on a regular basis. Newspaper publication within the State of Bihar was a good enough knowledge to the people at large. If petitioner did not become aware of such advertisement, respondents cannot be faulted. Since the petitioner did not respond, the authorities went ahead and appointed all those persons who did respond may be with lesser marks. If this be so, then there is no right of the petitioner to be 3 appointed, as such. There was an obligation upon the petitioner to respond to the notice within the time frame fixed in terms of Annexure-2. If the petitioner missed the bus, the blame lies with him and not with the respondents. The writ application is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)