{"id":29257,"date":"2011-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-22T09:54:29","modified_gmt":"2016-02-22T04:24:29","slug":"ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh<\/div>\n
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n               ----------\n<\/pre>\n
             C.W.J.C. No. No.16567 of 2004\n<\/p>\n
                      ——————\n<\/p>\n
     In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of
\n     the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                            ———\n<\/p>\n
     Sushil Chand Srivastava, son of late Pyare Mohan Lal,
\n     R\/O village Garhia, P.S. Rosra, District- Balia
\n     (U.P.)…………………………………………………..Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                              Versus\n<\/p>\n
1. The State Of Bihar, through the Secretary, Personnel and
\n    Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna\n<\/p>\n
 2. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, through its
\n    RegistrarGeneral, Patna High Court Patna.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna,
\n    Patna High Court, Patna\n<\/p>\n
 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
\n     through its Secretary\n<\/p>\n
 5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey
\n     Road, Patna\n<\/p>\n
  6. Rnjeet Kumar son of late Jageshwar Prasad, R\/O Mohalla
\n     Nimtalla Chowk, P.S. Munger, District-Munger, at present
\n     posted as Munsif, civil court Araria.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The Addl. Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
\n     Reforms , Govt. of Bihar, Patna…………………Respondents
\n                              With<\/p>\n
                 C.W.J.C. No. 16634 of 2004\n<\/p>\n
                                ——–\n<\/p>\n
  1 Niraj Kumar Roy, son of late Mangar Prasad Sharma,R\/o
\n     Mohalla Ranighat, P.S. Sultanpur, District- Patna\n<\/p>\n
 2. Panna Lal, son of Shri Borai, R\/o Village-Shahbarepur,
\n     P.S. Zafarabad, District- Jaunpur ( U.P.)\n<\/p>\n
  3. Sushil Chand Srivastava, son of late Pyare Mohan Lal, R\/o
\n     Village- Garhia, P.S. Rosra, District- Balia ( U.P.)
\n     ……………………………………………………………. Petitioners
\n                            Versus
\n1 The State Of Bihar, through the Secretary, Personnel and
\n  Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna
\n                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.The High Court of Judicature at Patna, through its Registrar
\n  General, Patna High Court, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
  3. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna\n<\/p>\n
  4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road,
\n     Patna, through its Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
  5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey
\n     Road, Patna\n<\/p>\n
  6. Sanjay Kumar son of name not known, R\/o Mohalla-
\n    Gajaradh, Ward No.1, Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, District-
\n    Rohtas, at present posted as Munsif Civil Court,
\n    Aurangabad\n<\/p>\n
 7. Shashidhar Vishwakarma, son of name not known, r\/o
\n     Mohalla- Mahaddipur, P.S. Kanshi Bazar, District-
\n     Munger, at present posted as Munsif, Civil Court,
\n     Begusarai\n<\/p>\n
 8. Md. Haribullah Ansari, son of name not known, r\/o
\n     Mohalla- Muradpur, Darji Tola, P.S. Pirbahore, District-
\n     Patna, at present posted as Munsif, Civil Court,
\n     Biharsharif, Nalanda.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Miss Sushma Kashyap, D\/o Shri R.B. Kashyap, Kashyap
\n    Building, Mohalla Bal Krishnaganj, P.S. Guljarbagh,
\n    District- Patna, at present posted as Munsif, Civil Court,
\n    Jehanabad
\n10 Mirtunjay Kumar Singh, son of name not known, r\/o
\n    village- Padawara, P.S. – Tarapur, District- Munger, at
\n     present posted as Munsif, Civil Court Begusarai.\n<\/p>\n
11. Raj Kumar Prasad, son of late Narayan Prasad, r\/o
\n     village- Bidachhawai, P.S. Kiul (R.S.), District-
\n     Lakhisarai, Pin-811310. at present posted as Munsif,
\n      Civil Court, Khagaria\n<\/p>\n
12. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
\n      Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna…………. Respondents
\n                         with<\/p>\n
             C.W.J.C. No. 3034 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
                          ——-\n<\/p>\n
  1. Ramesh Kumar, Son of Kailash Prasad, Resident of
\n  Village- Umarpur, P.S. Kotwali, Jaunpur City, District-
\n  Jaunpur ( U.P.) ……………………………………. Petitioner
\n                             Versus\n<\/p>\n
  1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Personnel and
\n                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna,
\nPatna High Court, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
3, The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna<\/p>\n
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road,
\n     Patna through its Secretary
\n5 The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,
\n     Bailey Road, patna.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Sanjay Kumar, Son of name not known, r\/o Mohalla-\n<\/p>\n
     Gajaradh, Ward No.1, Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, District-
\n     Rohtas, at present posted as Munsif, Civl
\n     Court,Aurangabad\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  7. Shashidhar Vishwakarma, Son of name not known, r\/o
\n     Mohalla- Mohaddipur, P.S. Kanshi Bazar, District-
\n     Munger, at present posted as Munsif, Civil Court,
\n      Begusarai\n<\/p>\n
   8. Mohd. Habbullah Ansari, son of name not known, r\/o
\n      Mohalla- Muradpur, Darji Tola, P.S. Pirbahore,
\n      District- Patna, at present posted as Munsif, Civil
\n      Court, Biharsharif, Nalanda\n<\/p>\n
    9. Miss Sushma Kashyap, D\/o Shri R.B. Kashyap,
\n       Kashuyap Building, Mohalla Bal Krishnaganj, P.S.
\n       Guljarbagh, District- Patna, at present posted as
\n       Munsif, Civil Court, Jehanabad\n<\/p>\n
  10. Mirtunjay Kumar Singh, son of name not known, R\/o
\n       village- Padawars, P.S. Tarapur, District- Munger, at
\n       present posted as Munsif, Civil Court Begusarai.\n<\/p>\n
  11. Raj Kumar Prasad, Son of late Narayan Prasad, r\/o
\n       Village- Bidachhawai, P.S. Kiul ( R.S. ), District-
\n       Lakhisarai, at present posted as Munsif, Civil Court-
\n       Khagaria…………………………………………. Respondents\n<\/p>\n
                       ———\n<\/p>\n
     For the petitioners :- Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate
\n     For the State        :- Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma
\n                              A.C. to G.A. 3
\n ( C.W.J.C. Nos 16567of 2004 and C.W.J.C. No.16634\/04)\n<\/p>\n
                    ———\n<\/p>\n
  For the petitioners:- Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate &
\n                        Mr. M. Mauli, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
  For the State     :-  A.C. to AAG-14
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
                                For the B.P.S.C. :- Mr. P.N. Sahi & Mr. Sanjay Pandey
\n                                For Patna High Court :- Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
\n                                For private Respts. :- Mr. Ajay, advocate.<\/p>\n
                                            PRESENT<\/p>\n
                                THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
\n                                THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY\n<\/p>\n
                                         —————\n<\/p>\n
Shiva Kirti Singh, J              The writ petitioners of all the three writ petitions had<\/p>\n
                       taken the 24th Judicial Service Examination conducted by the<\/p>\n
                       Bihar Public Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
                       Commission”) pursuant to an advertisement in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
                       They have prayed for quashing the notification no 4691 dated<\/p>\n
                       18.8.2001 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms<\/p>\n
                       Department of State of Bihar contained in annexure-5, whereby 70<\/p>\n
                       candidates were appointed to the post of Munsif             in the<\/p>\n
                       general\/open category on the basis of their position in the merit<\/p>\n
                       list.   The challenge is confined to the appointment of private<\/p>\n
                       respondents 6 to 11, who are at serial nos. 16,20,48,65,66 and 67<\/p>\n
                       of annexure-5 to C.W.J.C. No. 16634 of 2004. Since the cases of<\/p>\n
                       all the petitioners in these three writ petitions are said to be<\/p>\n
                       similar, for the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken,<\/p>\n
                       wherever necessary from the records of aforesaid writ petition<\/p>\n
                       which was argued as the main case. The petitions have made a
\n                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
further prayer for direction to the respondents to appoint them on<\/p>\n
the post of Munsif from out of merit list of general category<\/p>\n
candidates.\n<\/p>\n
2.            Fortunately, the facts are not in dispute. The initial<\/p>\n
vacancies advertised by the Commission were seven but with a<\/p>\n
stipulation that numbers might be increased. Subsequently, the<\/p>\n
number of vacancies was increased to 245 through another<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 7-10-1991.      The State of Bihar sought to<\/p>\n
introduce reservation for some backward categories, beyond the<\/p>\n
reservation provided under the Bihar Civil Services        (Judicial<\/p>\n
Branch ) ( Recruitment ) Rules,1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
“Rules”) which provide reservation only for S.C. and S.T.<\/p>\n
category candidates, through an Ordinance of 1991, which was<\/p>\n
later on converted into Act 3 of 1992. By a letter bearing no.<\/p>\n
13069 dated Ist. October,1991 the State Government took the<\/p>\n
stand that the provisions in the said Act for reservation to various<\/p>\n
categories such as Most Back-ward class, Extremely Back-ward<\/p>\n
class and women is to be applied to the recruitment through 24th<\/p>\n
Judicial   Competitive    Examination.      Accordingly,    in   the<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 7-10-1991 the vacancies were increased to<\/p>\n
245, and were categorized as ;- General -123, S.C. -34, S.T. -25,
\n                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
M.B.C.- 29, B.C.- 20, E.B.C.-7 and Women-7.<\/p>\n
3.             The provisions in the Ordinance were subsequently<\/p>\n
incorporated in the Act providing for reservation in the Judicial<\/p>\n
Service also     and these were challenged through C.W.J.C. No.<\/p>\n
7619 of 1991. That writ petition was allowed on 6.8.1993 vide<\/p>\n
Judgment reported in 1993(2) PLJR (Deepak Kumar Singh Vrs.<\/p>\n
State of Bihar) which was challenged by           the State of Bihar<\/p>\n
through SLP ( Civil ) No. 16476 of 1993 before the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court. The Court allowed the selection process to go on but stayed<\/p>\n
appointments vide interim order dated 13.5.94 which was partly<\/p>\n
modified on 16.5.95.       The matter remained pending there for<\/p>\n
sometime but ultimately the said S.L.P. leading to Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
No. 9072\/1996 ( State of Bihar Vrs. Bal Mukund Sah) was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14-3-2000.<\/p>\n
4.             It is not in dispute that on its administrative side the<\/p>\n
High Court by letter dated 18-3-94 advised the Commission to fix<\/p>\n
the cut off marks at 45% for the general candidates and at 35% for<\/p>\n
S.C.\/S.T. candidates, with further stipulation that candidates not<\/p>\n
more than three times the number of vacancies be called for<\/p>\n
interview and for that purpose the qualifying marks may be raised.<\/p>\n
Such advice was in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules.
\n                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
4.          The result of written examination was published on 18-<\/p>\n
4-1994 in which 539 candidates of different categories were<\/p>\n
declared qualified for the viva-voce test. In this list the number of<\/p>\n
general category candidates was 377 at cut- off marks of 473,<\/p>\n
whereas 162 candidates were shown qualified for different<\/p>\n
reserved categories viz. S.C. -66, S.T. -2, M.B.C.-20, B.C.-71 and<\/p>\n
Women-3. On 9th May, 1994 the Commission published a list of<\/p>\n
195 successful candidates which included 123 candidates of<\/p>\n
general category and 72 of reserve category which included 38<\/p>\n
O.B.C. and 34 S.C. The final result dated 16-5-94 is annexure-1<\/p>\n
to the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
5.              On account of interim order passed by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the connected SLP on 13-5-1994, no<\/p>\n
appointment could be made till that order was modified on 16-5-<\/p>\n
95 permitting appointment of the selected candidates only for<\/p>\n
filling up the general category posts but           subject to re-<\/p>\n
determination of their seniority and subject to result of the Special<\/p>\n
Leave Petition. Appointment to reserved posts was kept stayed<\/p>\n
with certain conditions relating to determination of seniority, if<\/p>\n
reservation was ultimately upheld. The appointment of 123<\/p>\n
candidates of General Category was made by notification dated
\n                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
30-11-1995.\n<\/p>\n
6.         After dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court on<\/p>\n
14-3-2000,the Personnel Department of the State Government by<\/p>\n
letter no. 6749 dated 18-8-2000 ( Annexure-2) conveyed the<\/p>\n
decision of the State Government in the mater to the Commission.<\/p>\n
The decision was that in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court    no appointment was to be made in the Bihar Judicial<\/p>\n
Service from back-ward categories, 34 vacancies for the<\/p>\n
Scheduled caste may be filled up from the candidates of that<\/p>\n
category recommended vide letter no. 158 dated 16-5-94<\/p>\n
(annexure-1);   the sole S.T. candidate recommended may be<\/p>\n
appointed against one of the 24 vacancies for the Scheduled Tribes<\/p>\n
but the rest 23 vacancies were to be carried over as per the<\/p>\n
provisions in the Act 3 of 1992 for three recruitment years; and<\/p>\n
against the 64 other reserved vacancies, appointment may be made<\/p>\n
on the basis of merit from general category. It was pointed out<\/p>\n
that two persons namely Ranjit Kumar and Ashok Kumar Gupta<\/p>\n
who were candidates belonging to the Back-ward category, had<\/p>\n
already been appointed earlier because of recommendation made<\/p>\n
by the Commission of 9 candidates ( on merit ) through letter no.<\/p>\n
606 dated 28-6-97 and their applications were not being returned
\n                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
with applications and papers         of other backward category<\/p>\n
candidates. It was emphasized that for the remaining vacancies<\/p>\n
which were to be treated as vacancy in general category, the<\/p>\n
recommendation should be on the basis of merit lists prepared in<\/p>\n
respect of 24th Judicial Service Examination.<\/p>\n
6.        It is further not in dispute that the direction to carry over<\/p>\n
vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes was challenged through<\/p>\n
C.W.J.C. No. 8655 of 2000 and the writ petition was allowed on<\/p>\n
24-1-2001.    The particular direction for carrying over the 23<\/p>\n
S.T.vacancies was quashed with the direction to act in accordance<\/p>\n
with Rule-20 which provides for filling up the unfilled reserved<\/p>\n
vacancies of S.T. and S.C. categories with qualified candidates<\/p>\n
from the general merit list.\n<\/p>\n
7.           The Commission made further recommendation to fill<\/p>\n
up the available vacancies treating them to be general category and<\/p>\n
accordingly appointments were made on the basis of further<\/p>\n
results prepared on the basis of merit in accordance with Rule 19<\/p>\n
and published on 1.1.2001 ( Annexure-3) for 64 candidates and<\/p>\n
on 17-5-2001 ( Annexure-4) for 23 candidates. This included the<\/p>\n
appointments of private respondents on the basis of aggregate<\/p>\n
marks obtained by them in the viva voce test and in the written
\n                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
examination as per provisions in Rule 19 of the Rules.<\/p>\n
8.          It is useful to notice at this stage that a batch of writ<\/p>\n
petitions were preferred by general category candidates who were<\/p>\n
not in the list of 377 general category candidates qualified for viva<\/p>\n
voce test on account of cut off marks at 473 for the general<\/p>\n
category.   They challenged the result of 64 further general<\/p>\n
category candidates published on 1-1-2001. Those writ petitions<\/p>\n
were finally dismissed by judgment dated 25-9-2001 reported in<\/p>\n
2001 (4) PLJR 276 ( Rameshwar Pati Tripathi Vrs. State of Bihar).<\/p>\n
In that case the basis of challenge was that even if the aggregate<\/p>\n
marks of some candidates, who had faced viva voce test as<\/p>\n
reserved category candidates justified their inclusion in the final<\/p>\n
merit list, there were at least three such candidates who had less<\/p>\n
marks in the written examination than the cut-off mark for the<\/p>\n
general cantegory candidates qualified for viva voce test. The<\/p>\n
judgment shows that all aspects of the controversy were<\/p>\n
considered in detail and it was finally held that though three of the<\/p>\n
petitioners might have a hypothetical chance to appear at the viva<\/p>\n
voce test but it would not be just and proper to reopen the viva-<\/p>\n
voce tests and    interfere with the impugned recommendations<\/p>\n
merely because some of the petitioners had a possible chance of
\n                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
facing Viva-voce test for selection, particularly when the<\/p>\n
recruitment process was completed pursuant to the interim orders<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court.\u00b4 The Court further held that the persons<\/p>\n
from the reserved category were called for viva -voce test bona<\/p>\n
fide and as per the terms of the advertisement and although this<\/p>\n
Court had held that the reservation for other backward category<\/p>\n
was not permissible, the S.L.P. preferred by the State was admitted<\/p>\n
and the Supreme Court passed an interim order permitting<\/p>\n
selection process to be completed.\n<\/p>\n
9.           Respondent nos. 6 to 11 were recommended by the<\/p>\n
Commission on 17-5-2001 and subsequently vide notification<\/p>\n
dated 18-8-2001 ( annexure-5) they have also been appointed<\/p>\n
along with others on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by<\/p>\n
them. They were posted as Munsif to different Civil Courts by<\/p>\n
notification dated 18-8-2001 and are working since last ten years.<\/p>\n
10.            On hearing the parties, it is found that the main<\/p>\n
challenge to the selection and appointment of respondents 6 to 11<\/p>\n
is on the same ground as was raised by the petitioners in the case<\/p>\n
of Rameshwar Pati Tripathi Vrs. State of Bihar (supra) which was<\/p>\n
rejected by the judgment reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 276 (supra).<\/p>\n
It was highlighted that in the written test they had secured less
\n                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
than 473 marks which was the cut-off mark for general category<\/p>\n
candidates and hence they should not have been permitted to take<\/p>\n
the viva voce test as candidates from the general category. It is<\/p>\n
not in dispute that they faced the selection process including viva<\/p>\n
voce test on account of terms of advertisement and      interim order<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court to continue with the selection process. It is also<\/p>\n
not in dispute that their aggregate marks are between 571 to 540<\/p>\n
and are more than aggregate marks obtained by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
On facts it is clear that the case of the writ petitioners in the case<\/p>\n
of Rameshwar Pati Tripathi ( supra) was superior because they had<\/p>\n
not been given the chance to appear in the viva voce test but the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the present cases have actually faced the viva voce<\/p>\n
test and in aggregate they have secured lesser marks.<\/p>\n
11.          The main argument advanced on behalf of petitioners<\/p>\n
is that Rule 17 has been violated because the Commission was<\/p>\n
required to arrange for viva voce test of the candidates on the basis<\/p>\n
of marks obtained at the written examination. According to them<\/p>\n
if that had been done, then there was a chance that the respondents<\/p>\n
may not have qualified for the viva voce test and hence their result<\/p>\n
and selection deserves to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
12.       The main features of the case have already been noticed
\n                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
above and it is evident that the Commission arranged for viva<\/p>\n
voce test on the basis of marks obtained at the written<\/p>\n
examination, while keeping in view the provisions for reservation<\/p>\n
in Act 3 of 1992. The action of the Commission was bona fide and<\/p>\n
while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, there<\/p>\n
was a direction to complete the recruitment process. On that basis<\/p>\n
the viva voce test was conducted and after the final judgment of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court, the State Government conveyed its decision to<\/p>\n
the Commission for recommending required number of candidates<\/p>\n
on the basis of merit list so that the reserved seats could be filled<\/p>\n
up with general category on the basis of merit ( aggregate marks).<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the<\/p>\n
State Government or the Commission or on the part of private<\/p>\n
respondents. It has rightly been submitted by the State that the<\/p>\n
basic issue remains the same as already finally decided in the<\/p>\n
case of Rameshwar Pati Tripathi (supra) and there is no good<\/p>\n
reason for interfering with the recommendations and appointments<\/p>\n
of the respondents when no interference was made on similar<\/p>\n
ground long back in the year 2001.\n<\/p>\n
13.    On consideration of the rival submissions and the relevant<\/p>\n
facts, we are of the considered view that there is no justification to
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
               interfere with the appointment of the private respondents on the<\/p>\n
               post of Munsif pursuant to orders of appointment contained in<\/p>\n
               annexure-5 dated 18th August, 2001. All the writ petitions were<\/p>\n
               argued on the basis that similar issues are involved in these cases,<\/p>\n
               hence they all shall stand dismissed by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
                        There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)<\/p>\n
Shivaji Pandey,J, I agree
\n                                                     ( Shivaji Pandey, J)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court, Patna
\nDated the 9th August, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
Naresh, AFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 Author: Shiva Kirti Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ———- C.W.J.C. No. No.16567 of 2004 —————— In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. ——— Sushil Chand Srivastava, son of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2942,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"wordCount":2942,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011","name":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-22T04:24:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29257","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}