M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent -State, although time was allowed by this Court by order dated 9.5.2000. This Court, therefore, has no option but to dispose of this writ application on the averment made therein. The petitioner is aggrieved by only that part of the impugned order dated 24.4.2000 issued by the respondents whereby the total marks allotted to the petitioner in 1994 panel for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Gyanocology has been reduced to 33 from 35.5.
(3.) IT appears that the respondents authorities invited applications from the eligible persons for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Gyanocology and after scrutinising a panel was prepared for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the said Department. In the said panel the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 1 and she secured 35.5 marks. A copy of the panel has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. It is worth to mention here that one Amrita Sharan was placed in Serial No. 3 and Sima Choudhary was placed at Serial No. 14 respectively in the said panel and they secured 35 and 33 marks respectively. Said Amrita Sharan challenged the said panel by filing CWJC No. 7109/97 before the Patna High Court. In the said writ application the respondent -State appeared and filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the said panel and the marks allotted to the candidates are valid and there is neither any illegality or irregularity in preparation of panel and allotment of marks to the candidates. The said writ application was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court on 22.4.1998 by passing the following order : "22.4.1998 by virture of selection indeed the selected candidate does not get indefeasible right to be appointed. This point is well settled in the case of Union of India v. S.S. Uppal and another, JT 1996 (1) SC 258. Applying the same yardstick in the instant case, we find that in the final selection list the petitioners name is appearing at Serial No. 3 whereas only two candidates, who are above her have been appointed. Thus, in our opinion, she has not been discriminated. It is not that the persons, who are ranked below her have been appointed. This being so, we do not find any ground to interfere at this stage in writ. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.";