Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1372 (PAT)

Adya Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2010-06-25

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There are many a petitioners before this Court who are seeking appointment on the post of constable in the district police especially in the so called Champaran Range. Since they could not be appointed, they approached the High Court earlier in yet another writ application which was CWJC No. 11639 of 2003. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application vide order dated 13.1.2006 which is annexure 5 to the writ application. Petitioners were given liberty to approach the D.I.G., Champaran Range with availability of unfilled vacancies which may be available and if the vacancies were there then the case of the petitioners would be considered. 3. It may be placed on record that the dispute related to the so called Advertisement No. 1 of 1998 when exercise for recruitment was carried out across the State including Champaran districts. Till date the petitioners have not been appointed because the DIG has passed a categorical order dated 16.8.2006 indicating that there are no vacancies available to be filled up. The total numbers of posts advertised for the entire Champaran range were 618 against which 601 posts were filled up during the recruitment drive. Only 17 posts were available which were meant for Home guards category and that too under various reserved heads. It is this communication contained in annexure-1 which is under challenge in the present writ application. 4. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that they have gathered enough evidence to show that there are still vacancies in the district specially the district of Bagaha and Bettiah and the stand taken by DIG with regard to non-availability of the vacancies does not indicate the exact state of affairs. 5. In that view of the matter a direction ought to be given now since some kind of right accrue in favour of these petitioners on the ground that they were being short listed at the time of recruitment. 6. The stand of the State which is reflected from the counter affidavit is that there are actually no vacancies to be filled up. The so called evidence gathered by the petitioners does not reflect the actual state of affairs. The final decision with regard to number of vacancies that were available and filled up are available in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. The so called evidence gathered by the petitioners does not reflect the actual state of affairs. The final decision with regard to number of vacancies that were available and filled up are available in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. Not only this many recruitments have carried out by the State Government since 1998. There are no posts to be filled up at this belated stage which could be readily available to the petitioners for appointment. 7. It is not for the Court to investigate the authenticity of the statement or the figure which has been produced by the petitioners with regard to availability of the posts vis-a-vis the statement made by the State about the non-availability of the post. But one thing which is surely weighing on the mind of the Court is that the appointment relates to the year 1998 and we are already in the year 2010. Many recruitments have already been carried out since 1998 from time to time. It is too far distance in history now to give any direction to dig out vacancies as per the statement of the petitioners and make appointment on the posts of constable. There has to be some time frame within which such prayers can be entertained or ought to be entertained. Twelve years is a long time now for giving any direction for identifying vacancies and offer the same to the present petitioners merely because they happened to make it to a short list of candidates at the time of recruitment in the year 1998-99. 8. Even otherwise the petitioners have no right to claim appointment merely because they were short listed candidates at the relevant time. Only short listing does not give any fundamental right for appointment. Appointment is to be made by the State based on many a factors or consideration. 9. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.