This Court wishes that this be the last of the writ petitions in relation to appointment of driver in the newly formed district of Lakhisarai.

2. Having heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned G.P.3 for the State and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. State has filed a counter affidavit and there are rejoinder on record.

4. Both sides have placed various facts, which indeed make things quite confusing. Unfortunately, it is a confusion deliberately being created at the district level when, in fact, there is no confusion.

5. Upon district of Lakhisarai being formed, for the Lakhisarai Collectorate, undisputedly, 12 posts of driver were sanctioned. In fairness to learned G.P.3, she states that in fact it was 13 posts. One extra post could only help the petitioner, if any. For filling up these posts, selection process were carried out and ultimately a panel of 19 persons was made. In this panel the petitioner being of General Category was at sixth position. For the first 12 persons, out of the panel, roster clearance was obtained for their appointments, which included the petitioner but while making appointment pick and choose method started. At different time, different people come to this Court and got different orders but the panel remained what it was, the vacancy remained there and the conduct of the Collector remained what it was “pick and choose”. In between a challenge was made to the panel as prepared before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, who finding some defects scraped the entire panel and directed it to be made all over again. As noted above, the petitioner was in this panel. People who were empanelled being aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Commissioner challenged the order and the action of the Divisional Commissioner before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and the order of the Divisional Commissioner, scraping the panel, was set aside restoring the panel. State took the matter in appeal first in intra court appeal and then to the Apex Court without success. Thus, the order of the Divisional Commissioner scraping the panel lost its sanctity and validity. Normally it would have been expected that once panel was restored, roster clearance having being obtained, appointments be made but for some undisclosed reason, which the Court cannot discuss, the appointments were not being made. The petitioner finding himself helpless in the matter and having failed to persuade the authority to appoint him came to this court in the present writ petition seeking appointment.

6. Learned G.P.3 firstly submits that the Divisional Commissioner having set aside the panel, which order of the Divisional Commissioner was set aside at the instance of two persons by the Writ Court , the benefit would accrue to those two petitioners, the petitioner ought to have come to this Court and sought relief. In absence whereof the authority could not consider his case. This argument is only noticed to be rejected. I can do no better when the Apex Court has held in the case of Ashwani Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 1628 in para 17 thereof. The relevant part is quoted hereunder:–

“Nor can we say that benefit can be made available only to 1363 appellants before us as the other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief against the State which has to give equal treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India”

7. I may also refer to notified Bihar State Litigation Notified Policy, 2011 wherein para 4. C(1) is quoted hereunder:–

“4.C (1).A good number of cases are from the category of similar cases. Each Gover