Case Background
This case arose from recruitment to Class-IV posts in Aurangabad district based on Advertisement No. 1 of 2009. A panel of candidates was prepared and used over time for making appointments.
According to the State, the first panel was prepared pursuant to directions of the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, via letter dated 29.06.2011. The life of this panel was fixed from 05.07.2011 to 04.07.2012. From this first panel, 103 appointments were made in different stages.
Later, in CWJC No. 11798 of 2011 (DDT Chhirkao Kramchari Sangh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC No. 1409 of 2012, the Patna High Court issued directions which led to preparation of a second panel, again emanating from Advertisement No. 1 of 2009. The life of this second panel was fixed from 27.04.2013 to 27.04.2014.
Appointments of 220 eligible candidates were made on 03.01.2015 from this second panel, even though the panel’s life had already expired on 27.04.2014. Still, some Class-IV posts under Aurangabad Collectorate remained vacant.
To fill these remaining vacancies, another set of writ petitions, including CWJC No. 8879 of 2014 and analogous cases, was filed. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directed the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, to consider the grievances of those writ petitioners and to take appropriate steps.
In compliance, the District Magistrate started a proceeding titled Class-IV Appointment Appeal No. 29 of 2015. After examining the matter, the District Magistrate concluded that the life of the panel had expired on 27.04.2014 and could not be extended. Therefore, no further appointments could be made from that panel. Appeal Case No. 29 of 2015 was dismissed by order dated 20.11.2015.
Subsequently, CWJC No. 14866 of 2016 (Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) was filed. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, by order dated 20.07.2017, quashed the decision of the District Level authority in respect of Class-IV posts.
Following that order, a meeting of the selection committee was convened on 31.03.2018. In this meeting, the committee recommended 178 qualified candidates for appointment on Class-IV posts on the basis of then available vacancies. At the same time, the committee clearly decided that in future no further appointment would be made from this panel.
The present appellants were candidates whose names appeared below those candidates who had already been appointed in their respective categories. They claimed that 62 vacancies were still available, and therefore, they too should be appointed from the same panel. Their writ petition, CWJC No. 23083 of 2018, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 15.03.2021. Against that order, they filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 332 of 2021).
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, heard the appeal. The judgment was delivered on 08.12.2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta.
On behalf of the appellants, learned Senior Counsel submitted that 62 vacancies of Class-IV posts in Aurangabad district were still available. The core grievance was that despite these vacancies, the authorities had not considered the appellants for appointment. According to them, they were already in the panel and therefore should be appointed.
The stand of the State was very different. The learned counsel for the respondent-State explained, step by step, the history of the panel arising from Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 and the dates on which its life began and ended. He pointed out that the panel had a fixed validity period and that many appointments had been made within and even beyond that period.
First, he stated that under the General Administration Department’s letter dated 29.06.2011, the first panel was valid from 05.07.2011 to 04.07.2012. During this time, 103 appointments were made. Thus, the panel had already been used extensively during its fixed life.
Second, pursuant to the High Court’s orders in CWJC No. 11798 of 2011 and CWJC No. 1409 of 2012, a second panel was prepared from the same advertisement. This second panel had a validity from 27.04.2013 to 27.04.2014. From this second panel, 220 candidates were appointed on 03.01.2015, even though the panel’s life technically ended on 27.04.2014.
Third, when further writ petitions like CWJC No. 8879 of 2014 were filed, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, examined the matter as Class-IV Appointment Appeal No. 29 of 2015. The District Magistrate explicitly held that the life of the panel had ended on 27.04.2014 and that it could not be extended, so no more appointments were possible. This led to the dismissal of that appeal on 20.11.2015.
Then came CWJC No. 14866 of 2016 (Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The learned Single Judge quashed the District Level decision on 20.07.2017, which opened the door for further consideration.
As a result, the selection committee met on 31.03.2018. It recommended 178 qualified candidates for appointment on the then available Class-IV vacancies. However, the committee also took a cautious and clear decision: in future, no further appointments would be made from this panel.
The State’s counsel further submitted that the appellants’ names appeared below the candidates who had already been appointed in their respective categories. Hence, the appellants could not claim any legal right to appointment once the panel’s permitted use had come to an end.
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Division Bench focused on a few key points.
First, the Court observed that the selection process of the year 2009 “cannot be continued in perpetuity.” This means that a recruitment exercise tied to a particular year and advertisement cannot be stretched endlessly over many years.
Second, the Court stressed that the life of the panel “cannot be in infinity.” Panels are meant to have a definite life span. Once that period ends, the panel itself loses legal force. The Court accepted the State’s consistent stand that the panel life had already expired.
Third, the Bench referred to a well-settled legal position: subsequent vacancies cannot be made part of an old selection process. New vacancies arising after the expiry of a panel cannot be filled from that old panel. They normally require a fresh recruitment process following updated rules and criteria.
Fourth, the Court took note that “selection criteria and other parameters for making appointment have undergone a substantial change.” Over time, rules governing eligibility, reservation, selection procedure and other norms may change. Using an outdated panel would conflict with the new framework and could be unfair to other potential candidates who would become eligible under revised norms.
Considering all these aspects together, the Division Bench held that no direction could be issued, at such a belated stage, to make appointments from a panel whose life had already expired and which related to an advertisement issued as far back as 2009.
Since the learned Single Judge had already refused to grant relief to the writ petitioners on essentially the same reasoning, the Division Bench found “no infirmity” in that order. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for many candidates who remain on old waiting lists or panels for government jobs. It makes clear that being on a panel does not give an endless right to appointment.
The Patna High Court has underlined that every selection panel has a fixed life. Once that period ends, even if some posts are still vacant, candidates cannot insist on being appointed from that old panel. Later vacancies must ordinarily be filled through a new recruitment process, especially when rules and criteria have changed.
For people in Bihar and elsewhere who have been waiting for years on old panels, this decision explains why courts often refuse to order appointments. It also sends a message to government departments to plan recruitment in a timely way and to be clear about the start and end dates of panels.
For lawyers and public servants, the case reinforces settled principles: no perpetual continuation of selection processes, no use of expired panels, and no automatic right to appointment just because a name appears on a panel below those already appointed.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can candidates be appointed to Class-IV posts in Aurangabad district from the panel prepared under Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 after the notified life of that panel had expired?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the 2009 selection process and its panel could not continue indefinitely, that the panel’s life had already expired, that subsequent vacancies cannot be filled from an old selection process, and that no direction could be issued at this late stage for appointments from such an expired panel.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No. 11798 of 2011 (DDT Chhirkao Kramchari Sangh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)
- CWJC No. 1409 of 2012
- CWJC No. 8879 of 2014 and analogous cases (titles not specified)
- CWJC No. 14866 of 2016 (Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.)
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 332 of 2021 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23083 of 2018
Case Title: Saroj Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 70
Advocates: For the appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents/State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) concerning appointments to Class-IV posts under Aurangabad district based on a recruitment panel.
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
