Patna High CourtCWJC/11148/2014dismissed

Pankaj Kumar v. The Director General Of Police And ORS

2017-12-05Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.11148 of 2014 dt.05-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11148 of 2014 =========================================================== Pankaj Kumar Son of Sri Kapildev Thakur Village- Kamarganj, Post- Jahangira, P.S- Sultanganj, Distt- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Director General of Police Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.

2. The Chairman, Magadh Region, Board, Gaya.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Chairman, Constable Selection Board, Munger through, S.P. Sheikhpura, Munger.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar, AC to GP 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-12-2017 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that pursuant to an Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 dated 14.08.2004, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable for Gaya District in the prescribed Performa. He submits that he had been found fit in the physical test in which he got 12 marks. He has annexed some representations vide Annexures 3 and 4A. From perusal of the said representations it appears that the petitioner has only requested the respondents for sympathetic consideration. No ground has been made out to show that the petitioner is entitled to any direction for his appointment as Constable.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11148 of 2014 dt.05-12-2017 Today when the matter is being taken up in the year 2017 considerable period has lapsed as the writ petition is in relation to an advertisement of the year, 2004 and nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that whether the process pursuant to the said advertisement has been completed or whether its fate has been otherwise. Hence no case is made out for interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 07.12.2017 Transmission Date