Rajiv Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18476 of 2018 ====================================================== Rajiv Ranjan Son of Deep Narayan Prasad, Resident of Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Sour Bazar O.P. Patarghat, District-Saharsa at Present residing at Madhepura, Ward No. 13, P.S.District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Director-In-Chief Service, Govt. Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Executive Director, State Health Committee, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Regional Additional Director, Health, Tirhut Division, Saharsa. 5.

The District Magistrate--Cum-Chairman, District Health Samittee, Madhepura, District-Madhepura.

6.

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura, DistrictMadhepura. 7.

The Sanchari, Rog Officer, Madhepura, District-Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Gupta For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rajeshwar Singh -GA-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-07-2021 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. The petitioner is seeking a direction for appointment to the post of Lab Technician pursuant to an advertisement issued on 22.06.2016 by the District Magistratecum-Chairman, District Health Society, Madhepura, whereby four posts had been advertised.

3. It is the petitioner's contention that in 2017, the merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was placed at

Patna High Court CWJC No.18476 of 2018(6) dt.06-07-2021 2/2 serial No.2. However, only one person has been appointed and the petitioner, despite his merit position in the merit list has not been appointed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the life of the panel prepared in 2017 was one year. It is not the petitioner's case any person of inferior merit has been appointed from the merit list.

5. In such circumstance, the Court need not issue a direction for appointment from a panel, life of which has already expired. Further, inclusion in the merit list itself does not confer any right to a candidate to be appointed.

6. The relief, which has been sought for on behalf of the petitioner cannot be granted.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this application stands dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U