IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3998 of 2009
Md.Khurshid Alam & Ors .
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors .
-----------
2. 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and the State.
Counsel for the State points out that the
grievance is with regard to a panel prepared in the
year 1991 and 1999 for appointment on Class-IV
posts, the petitioners being a daily wager. They
themselves state that an advertisement has
subsequently been issued in the year 2008, in
response to which they could have applied.
No mandamus can be issued today for
consideration or otherwise with regard to a panel
prepared the year 1991 and 1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that he seeks a limited relief that as and
when an advertisement is issued and the petitioners
apply, they should be considered in accordance with
law.
The second submission is that if no validity
can be given to any panel prepared in 1991 or 1999,
there can be no carry over of seniority from those
panels in any new panel to be prepared under a
fresh advertisement which has to be a fresh merit
2
panel.
The right to be considered afresh in
accordance with law under any fresh advertisement
issued is a right that cannot be denied to the
respondents.
A panel cannot have a life beyond one year
as otherwise it shall be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as it would debar the fresh
eligible from applying to be considered. The question
of any carry over of seniority from such extinct panel
in law, does not arise. Any fresh panel has to be
prepared strictly on basis of merit to be assessed
afresh.
The application stands disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)