IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.496 of 2011
MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH S/O KAAMESHWAR PD. SINGH
R/O VILL- REPURA RAMPUR BALLI PS- SARAIYA DISTT-
MUZAFFARPUR----------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. LABOUR RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT.
OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA
3. THE CHAIRMAN, B.P.S.C. 15 BAILEY ROAD,PATNA
4. THE SECY., BPSC. 15 BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
5. THE DEPUTY SECY. BPSC., 15 BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
6. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECY.
B.P.S.C.15 BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
7. THE HEAD SECTIONAL OFFICER, DIRECT RECRUIT SECTION
B.P.S.C. 15-BAILEY ROAD, PATNA---RESPONDENTS
-----------
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.N.Jha, Advocate
For B.P.S.C.: Mr. P.N.Shahi, Advocate &
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
For the State: Mr. D.K.Prasad, G.P.7
———–
3 1.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is yet another writ application by disgruntled
candidate who did not make it to the selection list prepared by the
Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of
Principal and Vice Principal in the Industrial Training Institutes,
Bihar.
According to petitioner he has the marks and he
has the experience for being invited for interview but the
respondent authority had played with his career or his future.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the BPSC has been
filed. Besides denying other assertions the status of the petitioner
has been stated in detail in paragraph-13. According to statement
made therein the petitioner was considered under the general
category. He has 63.08% marks in B.E. (Electronics). He has
annexed certain certificates showing experience but those
experience do not seem to be inconformity with the advertisement
-2-
as the experience relates to some kind of teaching done by the
petitioner in a coaching as well as some training in I.C.I.C.I Bank.
None of them can be termed to be experience of supervisory kind
in a factory for more than a year.
The second statement is that marks for the general
category candidates stopped at 70.58%. There is big gap between
the percentages of marks which the petitioner has vis-a-vis the last
candidate who got in from the general category. This gap cannot
be filled up by this Court or the B.P.S.C.
This writ application therefore has been filed not
on the basis of any substantive discrimination practiced against
him but more on illusory kind of discrimination which the
petitioner feels.
This writ application is dismissed in the above
circumstance as being devoid of merit.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)