IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12263 of 2011 1. Rajesh Kumar Sri Ramnath Singh Balughat near Jangli Mai Ashtan, P.S-Town, P.O- Head Post Office 2. Santosh Kumar Mishra Braj Mohan Mishra C/O Jitendra Jha New Coloney Balughat Road No.-3 Muzaffarpur, Bihar 3. Satyendra Kumar Late Bhuneshwar Choudhary Vill-Surjan Pakri, P.O-Shitalpatti, P.S-Shiby Patti Via Minapur District Muzaffarpur 4. Pritam Kumar Parmanand Kumar Vill-Sahbajpur,P.O- Bhikanpur,P.S-Ahiyapur,Distt-Muzaffarpur 5. Pramod Kumar Baidhyanath Sahni Vill-Rusulpur(Vajid) P.O- Bhikanpur Kothi , P.S-Ahiyapur, Distt-Muzaffarpur 6. Mirtunjay Kumar Sri Maheshwar Pd. Verma Moh.- Akharaghat Road,Behind Sudma Milk Palour Verma Tuit ,Tution Centre Muzaffarpur 7. Sarmendra Kumar Roy Bipin Kalyanpur Bhaya Runi Saidpur, P.S-Aurai,Distt-Muzaffarpur,Bihar 8. Harsh Bardhan Chandra Kishore Singh Moh-Balughat Brahn Asthan Near Suman Kirana Store Muzaffarpur, Bihar 9. Raul Kumar Jai Prakash Tiwari Moh-Berain Niwas Near Of Sri Ram Mandir, Balughat, Muzaffarpur 10. Krishna Kumar Pandey Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vill- Dharampur,P.O-Dharmar,Distt-Bhojpur 11. Mukesh Kumar Rajeshwar Singh Moh-Amma Niwash New Area Sikandarpur Near Prabhat Zarda Factory Muzaffarpur,P.S- Town Muzaffarpur,Distt-Muzaffarpur 12. Sheonandan Sahani Kishundeo Sahni Vill+P.O-Chauki, District-Begusarai 13. Ajit Kumar Kaushal Kishore Bassundhi Moh-New Colony Balughat Muzaffarpur,P.S-Town Muzaffarpur,Distt- Muzaffarpur 14. Mukesh Kumar Ram Kant Prasad C/O Ram Babu Singh Chhatauni Bazar Motihari,P.S-Town Motihari,Distt-East Champaran 15. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Sri Shambhu Prasad Vill+P.O- Pataura,Lala Tola,P.S-Mufasil Motihari Dist- East Champaran-- ------------------------------------------------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary Department Of Home, Patna 2. The Secretary Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna 4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Bihar, Patna through Its Secretary 5. The Chairman Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna 6. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna ----------------------------Respondents ----------------------------------
2 14.9.2011 Petitioners are the candidates who applied against vacant
post for recruitment, which was to be carried out by the State of Bihar.
Appointment related to 299 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police through
direct recruitment, which was to be done through what is known as
Staff Selection Commission.
After selection process writ applications came before the
High Court alleging many a things. The issue did not rest at the High
Court but travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court as well. A decision in
the case of Arvind Kumar Etc. Etc. vs. State of Bihar and other
analogous case came to be rendered on 2.2.2011. This decision is
reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 136 (SC).
Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that
petitioners should be treated in the same fashion as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court treated other candidates and even his claim should be
considered when a fresh exercise for written and physical tests is held.
In the normal circumstances, the Court would have had no
difficulty in allowing such a prayer because all similarly situated
persons have been given chances after intervention of the Court but
there is limitation on this count because of the observation of the
Apex Court in para-6 of the said decision. Para-6 of the said decision
is quoted herein below:
” In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these
cases, we direct the Bihar Staff Selection Commission
to hold fresh examinations for the 299 posts of Sub-
Inspectors of Police and only the appellants, who were
writ petitioners, before the High Court of Judicature
at Patna, whose cases were adjudicated upon or are
pending before the High Court (total 223 only as per
the list given in Court by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel) would be at liberty to appear in the
physical and written examinations. ”
Petitioners have approached the High Court only after the
decision had been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as writ has
been filed on 28.7.2011. As liberty has been granted to limited
persons to the dispute as per the observation of the Supreme Court,
case of petitioners do not come within the ambit of the said decision.
If this writ had been filed prior to passing of the order by the Apex
Court, petitioners may have had a case. Any indulgence with regard to
the claim of the petitioners will have to come from the Apex Court
and not by this Court.
Writ therefore is dismissed. Petitioners may approach the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue in light of the observation
contained in para-6 quoted above.
( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)