Ayodhya Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 17714 of 2016 =========================================================== Ayodhya Singh son of Late Baijnath Singh resident of village - Gopigarh, P.S. - Akori Gola, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department Government of Bihar.

2. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board through its Examination Controller, I.A.S. Association Building, Patna - 14.

3. The Examination Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Patna - 14.

4. The Medical Council of India, New Delhi.

5. The Examination Controller, Department of Health, Government of Bihar.

6. The Officer on Special Duty, Department of Health, Government of Bihar.

7. Additional Director General Vigilance, Government of Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the M C I : M/s Kr Brijnandan & Tareeq Hameed, Advs For the BCECEB : Mr Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Suryadeo Yadav, AAG 9 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 30-03-2017 Now in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court as is evident from the material on record, no further indulgence in this petition is called for. In case the petitioner points out any illegality in the counselling process, he should file a specific complaint giving specific details. On the basis of the vague and general allegation made in this petition with regard to the manner in

Patna High Court CWJC No.17714 of 2016 dt.30-03-2017 2/2 which the counselling was done, no relief can be granted. 2 Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority pointing out the illegality, if any, in the counselling process and it would be for the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law.

3 For the present, finding no indulgence to be made, this petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date M.E.H./- 03.04.2017 Transmission Date