Gaurav Kumar Shrivastwa v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.926 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Gaurav Kumar Shrivastwa Son of Shatrughan Prasad Shrivastwa, Resident of Village-Supauli, P.O.-Akshvar, P.S.-Sidhvaliya, District-Gopalganj, Bihar. 2.

Kundan Kishor, Son of Abhiram Roy, Resident of Village-Dighi Khurd, P.O.-Hajipur, P.S.-Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali, Bihar. 3.

Santosh Kumar, Son of Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of Gaushala Road, Ward No. 18, Near Mittal Agency, P.O.-Mokama, District-Patna, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-1.

4.

The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-1. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar (Gp4) For the B.P.S.C.

:

Mr. P.N.Shahi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Pandey with Mr. Nishant Kr.Jha, Advocates.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission'). The petitioners were applicant for examination conducted by the respondent-Commission for selection of Assistants. It is their complaint that having participated in the selection process the Commission has cancelled the entire selection process without reasons.

Patna High Court CWJC No.926 of 2020(2) dt.13-02-2020 2/2 From the pleading on record and based on submissions of petitioners' counsel, the admitted position is that thereafter selection process was conducted afresh, in which, petitioner has participated. It is the submissions of the petitioners' counsel that the exam for the selection process was conducted afresh on 01.02.2020 and that results are being published today. The petitioners have participated in the subsequent selection process. Result also has been declared. The subsequent events, therefore, leave no room for issuance of any direction by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so in view of the petitioners' participation in the subsequent process.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U