IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3562 of 2011
Ajay Kumar Singh son of Sri Ram Sewak Singh, resident of village -
Atardah, Police Station- Sadar, District Muzaffarpur ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Mr. Rahul Singh, the Transport Commissioner, Vishweshvaraiya
Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna
3. Mr. Baidyanath Prasad Daftuyar, the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, Patna P.O. Veterinary College, Patna 14
4. Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, the Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, Patna P.O. Veterinary College, Patna 14...Opp. parties
----------------------------------
2 12-09-2011 Heard the parties.
The writ petitioners and interveners want the
Commission to declare the result of screening done by
the Commission and call the writ petitioners for
interview for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle
Inspectors. They have raised a grievance that the
Commission has been causing undue delay in the
matter inspite of two months time granted earlier by
order dated 27-4-2011 which was extended till
September, 2011 by order dated 26-7-2011.
Learned counsel for the Commission submits
that on 3-9-2011 by annexure-7 to I.A. no. 6103/2011
the Commission has called 22 candidates to face
interview on 20-9-2011. The stand of the Counsel for
the Commission is that even after considering the
2
judgement of this court whereby true import of certain
words were explained and hyper technicalities were
ordered to be avoided, according to Commission, only
22 candidates have qualified for interview as per Rules
and law.
The writ petitioners and interveners have a
grievance that the Commission is not acting fairly and
properly and it has left out the writ petitioners and
interveners although, as claimed by them, they are also
entitled to be called for interview.
Now when the date of interview has already
been fixed by the Commission, this contempt petition
will not serve any useful purpose because through it we
were simply to ensure that the Commission completes
the exercise within the time indicated by this court.
Now the controversy between the writ petitioners and
the interveners on the one side and the Commission on
the other is on merits as to whether the cases of the writ
petitioners and interveners have been properly
considered or not. In our considered view, for raising
this kind of dispute, even if the case of the petitioners
3
has merits, they should approach this court afresh by
invoking writ jurisdiction.
With this observation, this contempt petition
and the interlocutory applications are finally disposed
of.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Shivaji Pandey, J.)
BKS/-