High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Ghulam Shahbaz Alam vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors. on 18 March, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Ghulam Shahbaz Alam vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors. on 18 March, 2011
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        MJC No.3680 of 2009
                   MD. GHULAM SHAHBAZ ALAM
                              Versus
                    THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                             -----------

07/ 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the light of my order dated 10.3.2011,

opposite party no.3 has filed supplementary show cause

stating that petitioner herein having not been

recommended by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission,

Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), has not

been appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police

pursuant to Advertisement No. 704/2004. In this

connection, he referred to the order dated 11.12.2009

passed by the Director General of Police, bearing Memo

No. 6210 dated 11.12.2009, Annexure-C to the show

cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, whereunder it

has been stated that petitioner having secured lesser marks

than the last person appointed pursuant to Advertisement

No. 704/2004, cannot be appointed on the post of Sub-

Inspector of Police. While passing order, bearing Memo

No. 6210 dated 11.12.2009, Annexure-C to the show

cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, the Director
2

General of Police, Bihar has not noticed the averments

made in the counter affidavit of the State filed in L.P.A.

No. 150 of 2009 (Chandan Kumar & another Vrs. The

State of Bihar & Ors.). In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the

said counter affidavit, it was categorically stated that re-

evaluation resulted in fresh merit list of 1510 candidates

containing 160 fresh candidates, who were not included in

the earlier merit list published prior to the re-evaluation.

Interest of 160 candidates selected earlier, who were not

included in the new merit list prepared after re-evaluation,

is required to be protected, as many of them left their other

option of job, failed to join elsewhere and did not apply

for other jobs.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

out of 160 candidates, who were included in the earlier

merit list but did not find place in the subsequent merit list

prepared after re-evaluation, 159 have already been

appointed. Petitioner is the only candidate out of those 160

candidates who has not been given offer of appointment in

the light of the averments made in paragraphs 10,11 and

12 of the counter affidavit filed in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2009.

It may be stated here that Chandan Kumar filed the
3

aforesaid L.P.A. before this Court for direction to the

State-respondents not to exceed the vacancies notified

under advertisement no. 704/2004 (1510) by including 639

vacancies for filling up in the same transaction and in

response to the prayer of Chandan Kumar, the State

submitted before the High Court that in order to

accommodate 160 candidates who have not found place in

the subsequent merit list prepared after re-evaluation, 639

vacancies are required to be included. When such

statement was made by the State-respondents in the

aforesaid L.P.A. filed by Chandan Kumar, at that stage the

State-respondents including the Commission should have

undertaken comprehensive calculation in order to ascertain

as to how many vacancies are required to be included in

the exercise for accommodating all the 160 candidates.

The Officers of the Home (Police) Department and the

Commission having failed in their duty to calculate the

required number of vacancies and having made statement

before the High Court in the said L.P.A. filed by Chandan

Kumar, cannot be allowed to go back from the stand

which they have already taken to accommodate all the 160

candidates, who have not found place in the subsequent
4

merit list.

4. Accordingly, I grant one more opportunity to

the State-respondents i.e. the authorities of the Home

(Police) Department, Home Commissioner as also to the

Director General of Police, Bihar and the Chairman of the

Commission to comply their own undertaking submitted

before this Court in the appeal filed by Chandan Kumar to

accommodate all the 160 left over candidates, failing

which they should appear before this Court on 30.3.2011.

5. Put up this matter on 30.3.2011 maintaining

its position under the same heading.

Arjun/                                       ( V. N. Sinha, J.)