Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 July, 2011
                                MJC No.2521 of 2011
                                    Ranjeet Kumar
                              The State Of Bihar & Ors
                                MJC No.2547 of 2011
                                      Upendra Rao
                                Brajesh Kumar & Ors
                                MJC No.2301 of 2011
                                      Upendra Rao
                              The State Of Bihar & Ors
                                MJC No.2575 of 2011
                                    Nishant Kumar
                              Mr. Uday Singh Kumawat

3 11-07-2011 The Secretary, Transport is present in court as

per our earlier directions.

2. In compliance of directions issued earlier

appointment letter contained in memo no. 2914 dated

9-7-2011 has been produced before the court showing

that all the 20 candidates recommended by the

Commission for appointment to the post of Motor

Vehicles Inspector in pursuance of advertisement no.

2607/2007 have been offered appointment and they can

join the post within one week or at the maximum within

one month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

taken strong objection to the stipulation in Clause 7 of

the appointment letter in which reference has been made

to LPA nos. 905, 906 and 910 of 2010 and, particularly,

to order passed on 1-9-2010.

4. According to learned counsel for the State,

since this court granted liberty in the order dated

21-5-2010 passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals

that as an additional measure to ensure that no fake

claims are allowed to succeed relating to driving license,

driving test should also be held. According to him this

would be related to those who had already been selected

and found fit by the Commission but according to

learned counsel for the petitioners it stands clarified by

further observations in the same paragraph that

`Prapatra-ii’ cannot be ignored in view of rules of

advertisement and, hence, “the dispute relating to driving

license may again be re-scrutinized by the Commission/


5. Prima facie only the candidatures who were

under dispute on account of doubt in respect of their

driving license could be re-scrutinized by the

Commission/ Committee and the observation that as an

additional measure driving test may also be held relates

only to the candidates whose driving licenses were under

dispute. This aspect, according to learned counsel for the

petitioners, has been clarified by this court on more than

one occasion but again such condition has been imposed

by the Transport Secretary, Government of Bihar in

Clause 7 of the appointment letter and not as an

independent decision of the State Government to hold

such driving test but as an obligation allegedly arising

out of orders of this court.

6. According to petitioners whatever tests were

required under the rules or advertisement had to be taken

by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and there was

no provision in the advertisement or in the rules to

subject the recommended candidates to further driving

test as is being done under Clause 7 of the appointment


7. Clearly, a dispute has arisen as to whether

afresh conditions can be added beyond the rules or the

terms of advertisement by the State or not and whether

the requirement of selecting appropriate candidates

would be duty of the Commission or of the State.

8. According to learned counsel for the

Commission only the driving license had to be looked

into and verified which was done by the Commission in

the case of 20 successful candidates recommended for

appointment. He submits that any further test beyond the

rules and advertisement will open Pandora’s box and

Commission should not be called upon to take up the

cases of the recommended candidates afresh for

subjecting them to any further test.

9. In the facts of the case, before deciding the

issues raised above, one way or the other, we would like

to know the stand of the State Government as regards

necessity of holding the test in respect of 20

recommended candidates and whether this shall be a

standard procedure for subjecting all the candidates for

future recruitment or is it by way of one time measure

only in respect of 20 selected candidates. We would also

like to have a clear stand of the State Government as to

who, according to them, is competent to take the test, if it

is permissible, the Transport Department or the

Commission. A clear stand on both the issues should be

presented before this court within two weeks.

10. Put up under the same heading after two


11. In the meantime, proposed test shall be

kept in abeyance but if the candidates make themselves

available, they shall be allowed to join their posts.

12. Personal appearance of the Secretary,

Department of Transport is dispensed with for the


                               (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

BKS/-                          (Shivaji Pandey, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *