JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. This writ application was filed for, quashing the communication dated 31.12.1993 (Annexure-10) sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to the State Government, expressing his inability to make appointments from the so called merit list prepared in the year 1989 and rejecting the prayer of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to consider to appoint the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is that she applied for the post of Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement No. OC 15/ 1988 published in newspaper ‘Aaj’ (Ranchi edition) on 7.8.1988. She appealed in the interview pursuant to the interview card issued on 4.1.1991. Out of the same advertisement, interview for reserved, post was done on 22.12..1990 and on the recommendation of District Selection Committee appointment letters were issued to the candidates of reserved category on 7.1.1991. She was the only woman candidate in merit list and as per the roster she was entitled for appointment”. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih was competent to appoint Class-III employees, but he arbitrarily withheld the appointment letter to the petitioner and other candidates who were in general category on some pretext or other.
3. Being aggrieved by the said action, she filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1190/1992(R) which was disposed of on 21.11.1993 with the observations and directions that if vacant posts are still available and the penal still survives, appointment letter in accordance with law as against the sanctioned posts in question be issued to the petitioner. As per the said order of High Court, the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter of all the general candidates including the petitioner. The recommendation of the authorized committee was sought by the Deputy Commissioner. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 31.12.1993 the Deputy Commissioner considered the matter as pier the said order of the High Court and rejected the claim of the petitioner and another for their appointments from the merit list prepared in the year 1989. He found that the said merit list was doubtful and as such no appointments were made from the said merit list of the year 1989, from general category and in any event the said merit list did not survive.
4. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 31.12.1993 in this writ petition. On 16.3.1994 it was ordered that this writ application will be heard by a Division Bench, fixing the date of hearing as 9th May, 1994. This is how this writ petition has come up for hearing before the Division Bench.
5. The case of the respondents in short is that no panel was prepared and no letter for interview was issued. The said letter was for typing test and verification of documents/certificates in original. There was a ban on the appointments which was relaxed only for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and accordingly only such candidates were appointed. No appointments from general category was made. The earlier reservation policy regarding woman candidate was withdrawn. Deputy Commissioner alone was not competent to make appointment without the sanction of authorized committee for appointment of candidates, of general category. No such sanction was received and, therefore, appointments were not made. A committee of six officers and one representative of the candidates of the general category was formed to examine the matter. The committee after thorough and careful examination of all concerned mattery submitted a report to the effect that the so called ‘merit list’ prepared in 1989 was not in accordance with the Government circulars and that no recommendation of the authorized committee, for appointments of general candidates was received. As such the matter was closed and a report was made to the Government by the memo dated 31.12.1993, impugned in this writ petition. The vacancies might have existed as no appointments were made from the general category but as the merit list prepared in 1989 did not survive for such a long time, no appointments could be made from the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of teamed Single Judge of Patna High Court dated 27th April, 1994 in the case of Ajay Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 894/1991.
7. In the said case it was found that, in the case of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the panel was finalized and appointments were made but in the case of candidates belonging to general category the same was not finalized and, therefore, the plea that the panel has expired after laps of one year was not accepted. Here in this case the stand of the respondents is that the so called merit list was not prepared as per the Government instructions and there was no sanction by the authorized committee for making appointment of the candidates from general category in any event. More over in a subsequent Division bench case reported in Ramji Tiwari and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1996 (1) All PLR 273, the Patna High Court held that it was not desirable to make appointment out of an advertisement made ten years back.
8. It is true that, if from the same panel/merit list, only the candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were appointed and no appointments were made from the general category, it was absolutely unjustified and arbitrary. But at such a distance of time i.e., after about thirteen years, it will not be proper to direct the respondents to make appointment from such panel/merit list.
9. In the result, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition and as such the same is dismissed. No costs.