Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 649 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar

2006-07-27

body2006
ORDER Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhaya, counsel for the petitioner, and JC to SC 15. 2. The petitioner is desirous of his selection and appointment pursuant to selection made in the year 1989 by Vidyalaya Seva Board for appointment of teachers in different subjects. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 1987 the petitioner also applied and after due process of selection he was included in selection list at serial no. 128, but somehow or the other, appointment letter was not issued to him. The matter thereafter came to this Court at the behest of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8471 of 1990, which was dismissed on 29.10.1991 with certain observations. The order passed by this Court has been brought on record, marked as annexure 4. 4. From annexure 4, it appears that this Court observed as follows:- "We cannot give direction to the State Government to appoint the petitioner as teacher from out of the panel, which was prepared when Dr. R.K. Poddar was Chairman of the Board." 5. It was also observed by this Court that if the posts are available why the State Government shall not take into consideration the panel for appointment. 6. The petitioner even then was not appointed, so, ultimately, this writ application was filed. 7. It is contended by Mr. Mukhopadhaya, counsel for the petitioner that since certain posts in Ancient History are lying vacant and the petitioner is at serial no. 128, the State Government may be directed to consider his case. 8. At this stage, it is not known to the Court as to the state of affairs, for which the advertisement was issued in the year 1987. At the same time, it is also not known to the Court as to whether in recent days persons have been appointed out of the panel prepared in 1989. 9. Normally, the life of a panel remains for one year and after lapse of one year, appointment cannot be made out of the panel, which would have lapsed. 10. This Court faced with this circumstance, is not in a position to issue any direction to the respondent authorities to take steps for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, which was advertised in the year 1987. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I find no merit in this application. 12. 10. This Court faced with this circumstance, is not in a position to issue any direction to the respondent authorities to take steps for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, which was advertised in the year 1987. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I find no merit in this application. 12. It is, accordingly dismissed.