Patna High CourtCWJC/1637/2015disposed

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India And ORS

2015-03-27Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1637 of 2015 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Yadav son of Shiv Bihari Yadav, resident of AtRamjanipur, P.O.- Kalgiganj Via Kahalgaon, P.S.- Kahalgaon, DistrictBhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of India New Delhi

2. The Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad through its Regional Director (CR) 8-AB, Beli Road, Allahabad- 211002

3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission (CR), 8-AB, Beli Road, Allahabad- 211002

4. The Director General of Police, Border Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

5. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

6. The Director General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

7. The Director General of Police, Shashtra Seema Bal, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

8. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha (CGC) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2015 Learned counsel for the respondents having received instruction has submitted that in the revised result, the petitioner has been held to be successful and now the process of appointment of the petitioner along with others will be undertaken in accordance with law. He has also submitted that this has been done pursuant to the direction of the Delhi High Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1637 of 2015 (3) dt.27-03-2015 That being so, when the respondents are themselves prepared to re-consider the case of the petitioner, this writ application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with others in accordance with the law within a timeframe as fixed by the Delhi High Court.

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of as having become infructuous. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/- U