Deo Prakash v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2016 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2532 of 2014 =========================================================== Deo Prakash S/O Ramji Seth, Resident Of Village- Madarichack, P.O+ P.SMehasi, District- East Champaran. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

3. The Officer-on- Special Duty, District Confidential Section, East Champaran, Motihari.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Chakia, East Champaran.

5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

6. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Mehasi, East Champaran.

7. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Mehasi, East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No.1, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG-6 For NagarPanchayat Mehasi : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) Date: 14-02-2017 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 9th of October, 2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 2532 of 2014 whereby, the writ application was dismissed.

2. In the writ application, the appellant had sought

Patna High Court LPA No.81 of 2016 dt.14-02-2017 2/3 appointment on the post of Peon after the vacancy arose on account of removal of one Birendra Rai.

3. In a process for appointment to fill up certain posts for Nagar Panchayat, Mehasi, the appellant did not make it to the merit and was not appointed. One Birendra Rai was appointed, who was removed from service later on. It is thereafter, the appellant again started making representation for appointment against the vacancy so created by the removal of Birendra Rai. The learned Single Bench has found that the vacancy so created cannot be filled up on the basis of the merit list prepared earlier as such vacancy has to be filled up after an advertisement is issued and opportunity is given to all eligible candidates who applied for consideration of appointment.

4. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Once the appointments are made, the selection list cannot be used as a reservoir for making appointment as and when any vacancy arises. Any vacancy has to be filled up in accordance with the principles of filling up of the posts by an advertisement and by giving an opportunity to all eligible candidates who applied for consideration of appointment.

5. In view of the said fact, the vacancy which arose on account of removal of Birendra Rai cannot be filled up on the basis

Patna High Court LPA No.81 of 2016 dt.14-02-2017 3/3 of select list prepared earlier point in time.

6. We do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 21.02.2017 Transmission Date