Appointment from a Vikash Mitra merit list after its one-year validity violates governing rules.

The petitioner, a resident of Gram Panchayat Madarpur and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, sought appointment as Vikash Mitra for Cluster/Ward No. 10.

The post had earlier been occupied by Manish Kumar, who was selected and appointed pursuant to a merit list prepared in 2021 and subsequently resigned after approximately two years of service.

The petitioner therefore sought directions for fresh advertisement of the post and quashing of the appointment letter dated 26 June 2023 issued to respondent no. 15.

1. Whether respondent no. 15 could validly be appointed on 26 June 2023 from a merit list prepared in 2021, when the applicable instructions prescribed a one-year validity period for the merit list?

2. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to issue the appointment letter, or whether the matter was required to be examined by the District Magistrate under the applicable selection guidelines?

Clause XI places the selection process under the general supervision and control of the District Magistrate, while Clause XII provides that the selection process is to be conducted under the guidance and supervision of the Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission; irregularities are to be examined by the District Magistrate or the Mission authorities, with an appeal to the State Mission Office and the Mission’s decision being final.

Clause 5 of the Executive Committee’s decision dated 12 March 2021, based on the General Administration Department’s guidance dated 10 September 2020, prescrib[es] the validity of the Vikash Mitra merit list as one year.

The Mission Director’s letter no. 565 dated 3 June 2021 also recognised the one-year validity of the merit list.

The Court found that the relevant merit list had been prepared in 2021 and that, under Clause 5 and the applicable executive instructions, it remained valid for only one year.

Since respondent no. 15 was appointed approximately two years later, on 26 June 2023, the appointment appeared to have been made after expiry of the merit list’s validity period.

The Court further observed that the selection guidelines assigned the relevant supervisory and appellate role to the District Magistrate, whereas the appointment letter had been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Treating this as a prima facie violation of the prescribed procedure, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the grievance before the District Magistrate rather than directly adjudicating the validity of the appointment in the writ petition.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, within 30 days with a copy of the judgment.

The District Magistrate was directed to hear the petitioner and respondent no. 15 and decide the grievance in accordance with the applicable rules and the executive instruction dated 15 March 2021 within 90 days from the appearance of all concerned.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.