Nausad Khan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13570 of 2015 ====================================================== Nausad Khan son of Late Md. Hasim Khan, resident of village- Kaler, P.O. Kaler, P.S. Kaler, District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

D.I.G. Sahabad Range, Sitting place at Dehri-on-Sone 4.

The Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Patna Old Secretariyat, Bailey Road, Patna null null 5.

The Additional Director or Police, Sahabad Range, Old Secretariate, Patna 6.

The Chairman of Appointment Authority of Constrable R. Maller Villi, in the year 2004. Superintend 7.

At present Superintendent of Police, Buxar 8.

The Chairman of Central Selection Board, Constable Recruitment Board, Bihar, Patna 9.

The Secretary of Central Selection Board of Constable Recruitment Board, Patna 10.

Md. Jamshed Alam son of Md. Anam Khan of village- Kaler, P.O. Kaler, P.S. Kaler, District- Arwal ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-13 For the C.S.B.C.

respondents 8 & 9 :

Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. With Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Adv. With Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2022

1. No one appear for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has come up with the case that he was having Roll No. 7754 and he scored 12 marks, while candidates having 10 marks was appointed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13570 of 2015(2) dt.20-12-2022 2/2

3. However, from scrutiny, it has been found that Roll No. 7754 belongs to one Om Prakash and not to the petitioner and, therefore, entire basis of the writ petition is found to be false and based on mis-conception.

4. Considering the above, this Court is satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the roll number mention is different and belongs to someone else.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 53 U