Rakesh Kumar And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17649 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Rakesh Kumar and Anr. Son of Udit Narayan Singh R/o village - Santhua, P.O. Pogar, P.S. Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad 2.

Nitesh Kumar S/o Sri Udit Narayan Singh R/o village - Santhua, P.O. Pogar, P.S. Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Deputy Inspector General, Human Rights , Bihar, Patna 4.

The Inspector General Bihar, Military Police, Bihar, Patna 5.

The Chairman, Police Selection Board, Gaya 6.

The Chairman, Police Selection Board, B.M.P. 18 Bodh, Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2022 The case was taken up in the second round. No one appears for the petitioner even in the second round.

1. The petitioner prays for consideration of appointment as a constable against the post advertised vide advertisement no. 1/2004 and 2/2004. It is stated that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and was declared pass. The writ petition has been preferred in 2014 based on judgment passed by this Court in relation to some other petitioner in L.P.A 8312/2009 decided on 28.06.2011. In the writ petition itself the petitioner admits that he became

Patna High Court CWJC No.17649 of 2014(2) dt.29-11-2022 2/2 overage in the year 2006 itself but he prays that he should be considered for the post of constable now.

2. In the opinion of this Court, a selection process initiated in 2004 cannot be allowed to be continued for years together. A person who is not aware of his rights and does not take up any action for vindicating them, cannot be allowed to take up legal remedy after long period of ten years. The writ petition does not explain reasons for not approaching this Court earlier, and suffers from gross laches and delay. On merits too this Court finds that the petitioner was not found to be within merit for the available vacancies. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) shaswat/- Item No. 76 U