Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 663 (PAT)

Aditya Nath Jha v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-29

J.N.BHATT, NAGENDRA RAI

body2005
Judgment 1. After having heard and considering the facts, the delay in filing the appeal, as prayed for, is condoned. 2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Singh Judge passed on 27.4.2005 in CWJC Nos. 8386 of 2001 and 10277 of 2001 whereby the claim of the appellant, being original petitioner in CWJC No. 8386 of 2001 for, appointment as munsif in the Judicial services of the State of Bihar came to be turned down on various reasons. 3. We have given our anxious thoughts and considered thread bare the contents and the colour of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the relevant provisions of law, latest pronouncements on the point in issue and we find that the alleged claim based on the allegation of non-appointment of the munsifs of the Judicial service in the State of Bihar is rightly adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge. Not only it is founded by the reasons but also supported by the provisions of law. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act 30 of 2000) is enacted with a legislative design to, inter alia, adjust the personnel employed in the newly created State of Jharkhand. The cut off date is 15.11.2000. Any appointment out of the select list meant for the appointment to the post of munsifs in the judicial service is undisturbed. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar into two States, in view of the fixed quota for the newly created State in the Judicial service, obviously there was reduction in the strength of the Judicial service in the State of Bihar. In such an eventuality and in the clear legal set up, persons empanelled in the select list/wait list would otherwise have no right to claim appointment and they cannot be allowed to agitate the grievances voiced in the original writ petition which came to be rightly rejected. 5. In our opinion, there is no substance in the present Letters Patent Appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal at the threshold without costs.