JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Re.:- LA. No. 7439 of 2018/01 of 2018

2. The above mentioned Interlocutory Application has been preferred for impleading the Registrar General, Patna High Court as party respondent in the writ application. Though the Registrar General, Patna High Court was not made party respondent in the writ proceeding, however, considering the nature of issue involved, LA. No. 7439 of 2018/01 of 2018 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to implead the Registrar General, Patna High Court as respondent in the writ application as well as in the present appeal.

Re.:-L.P.A.No.1377 of 2018

3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.08.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4290 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's prayer for conducting special interview as also for considering his application for appointment on Class-IV employee in the Civil Court, Begusarai since he received interview letter on the date of interview itself due to postal delay, has been rejected.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that vide Advertisement no. 01 of 2016, the applications were invited for appointment on Class-IV post in the Civil Court, Begusarai. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his application along with requisite fee under the unreserved category. The appointment was to be made on the basis of interview only. The interview of the appellant was fixed on 16.11.2016 for which the interview letter of the appellant was dispatched by the concerned official of the Civil Court, Begusarai by post on 11.11.2016, but the appellant received the same on 16.11.2016 at Hisua, Nawada in the afternoon, while the timing of interview was at 4.30 P.M. on 16.11.2016. Consequently, the appellant could not participate in the interview process. The appellant submitted a representation before learned District Judge, Begusarai on 21.11.2016 for conducting special interview on some further date but it was not considered and ultimately, the selection-cum-merit list was published on 17.12.2016. The appellant came to know that in a similar circumstance in the judgeship of Buxar, Bhojpur, Sheikhpura and Hajipur, the candidates who received interview letters with delay due to postal lapses, were allowed to appear in the interview. Ultimately, the appellant agitated his claim through a writ application being CWJC No. 4290 of 2017 but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Shubham Kumar Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission through Chairman & Ors. reported in 2014(3) PLJR 661 wherein it has been held that on account of failure of postal department in serving letter of interview within time, no right would accrue in favour of the applicant to claim fresh interview.

5. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the interview letter was transmitted to the appellant just about five days prior to the scheduled date of interview, hence reasonable time was not provided for transmission of the interview letter. Moreover, due to gazetted holidays, intervening in between 11.11.2016 and 16.11.2016, the appellant received the interview letter on 16.11.2016 at noon. It is further submitted that in other Judgeship, the candidates, who failed to appear on the date fixed for interview, were allowed to appear subsequently.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court submits that the appellant admittedly received the letter of interview on 16.11.2016 in the afternoon, but he chose to file representation in that regard only after five days i.e., on 21.11.2016, and now, the appointment process has already been concluded. Moreover, a third party right has already been created and in 2016, the appointments were done in accordance with the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and IV) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Rules