Tarkeshwar Mishra and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.—In both the writ petitions, no one appears on behalf of Petitioners in spite of repeated calls. State is represented.

Learned Counsel for the State points out that the writ petitions were misconceived. In both the writ petitions, grievances were similar. I have perused the records and I find that the stand of the State is correct. It appears that Vidyalaya Seva Board advertised for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Government Secondary Schools in different subjects. In both the cases, Petitioners'' own averment is that after due selection, they did not figure in the merit list, as was prepared and sent for appointments. They were included in the supplementary merit list, as sent by the Vidyalaya Seva Board. Their plea is that there being existing vacancies, the supplementary merit list, as sent by the Vidyalaya Seva Board should have been acted upon by the Government and appointments made there from. In the counter affidavit, State has specifically stated that the Department had not asked for any supplementary merit list to be sent. From the merit list, originally sent, appointment letters were issued and appointments made and in respect of these two subjects, there being no demand for a supplementary merit list, as such, the supplementary merit list submitted was void and so it was not acted upon. I find that no exception can be taken to such a decision.

Thus, the writ Petitioners have no right for which they can seek mandamus. The writ petitions are misconceived and are dismissed accordingly.