Sanjeet Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1787 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16627 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Sanjeet Ram Son of Sri Challitar Ram, R/o - Village - Kadarchak, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.

6. The In-charge Deputy Collector, District - Public Grievances Cell, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Chiranjeev Rai, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 Mrs. Priya Gupta, AC to GA-7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 20-06-2017 A panel was prepared for appointment in February, 2014. The life of the panel was one year which it lapsed in February, 2015 and the petitioner filed the writ petition in October, 2015 seeking appointment by operating the panel. The learned Writ Court refused to grant the relief on the ground that after lapse of life of the panel, which was for a period of one year, merely because petitioner's name appeared in the panel and some person has been appointed out

Patna High Court LPA No.1787 of 2016 dt.20-06-2017 2/2 of the said panel, no relief can be granted after the period of the panel has lapsed. It is not the case of the appellant that a person junior to him or a less meritorious candidate has been appointed. Therefore, no case is made out for interference into the matter. Once the period of the panel has lapsed, merely because vacancies are available, it cannot be made operational, any such vacancies had to be filled up by initiating the process of appointment afresh. Accordingly, the learned Writ Court has committed no error warranting re-consideration. The appeal is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.6.2017 Transmission Date N/A