Patna High Court - Orders
Rajeev Kumar Verma And Anr vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 February, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1361 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4912 of 2016
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar Verma and Anr.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha- GA7
For the Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 28-02-2019Heard learned counsel for the appellants Shri Kumar Kaushik who submits that the claim of the appellants deserves to be considered keeping in view the fact that out of the appointments offered by the respondents to 144 candidates, some of them did not join and out of them three were of unreserved category to which the appellants-petitioners belong. The contention, therefore, is that had the respondents proceeded to maintain a panel of all the eligible candidates after lowering down of the marks which is admitted to them by 20%, then the appellants who have secured more than 80% are within the eligibility zone. The respondents, therefore, ought to have offered the posts which could not be filled up to those Patna High Court L.P.A No.1361 of 2018(2) dt.28-02-2019 2/3 candidates who fell within the eligibility zone.
Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Bindhyachal Singh submits that the last candidate of the unreserved category Gulab Chandra Vishwakarma has secured 88.33% and all the appellants herein have secured lower than that. Therefore, the respondents have not engaged any person of the unreserved category having lower marks than the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants then contends that had the panel been prepared as per the Rules and after preparing a list of all such candidates, who had secured more than 80% marks, then in the event of certain posts still lying vacant in the respective categories could have been offered to them and which could have been possible also in the case of the appellants.
Shri Bindhyachal Singh, however, takes another defence that no other candidates were offered appointment as against all the 144 vacancies offers were made and selections were concluded. Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued carrying forward the vacancies which could not be filled up under the said advertisement and it is evident that it was in special circumstances that the percentage was lowered in order to make available certain candidates which cannot be treated to be a claim or a right arising out of any legitimate expectation by Patna High Court L.P.A No.1361 of 2018(2) dt.28-02-2019 3/3 the appellants for the purpose of accommodating them. He submits that once fresh advertisement has been made with the carried over vacancies, then the appellants cannot claim a right of consideration in respect of the selections which has already come to an end after the issuance of the fresh advertisement.
To counter the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others Versus South East Central Railway and others, reported in AIR 2019 SC 24, paragraphs 9 and 10, on the basis whereof it is urged that the rights of the appellants for being considered cannot be taken away merely because subsequent advertisements have been issued.
Sri Bindhyachal Singh submits that he will respond to the same on the next occasion and seeks an adjournment to that effect.
Let the matter come up on 28th March, 2019.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Anjana Mishra, J) Sunil/-
U