Dr.Manish Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19403 of 2010 ======================================================
1. Dr. Manish Kumar S/O Sri Mahabir Prasad Singh R/O MohallaMalighat, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
2. Dr. Abhishek Kumar S/O Mahendra Prasad R/O Mohalla- Ranjan Path, P.S.- Rupaspur, Distt.- Patna
3. Dr. Pankaj S/O Dr. J.K. Singh R/O Mohalla- Kadam Kuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan And Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of Health, Medical Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Sectional Officer Direct Recruitment Branch, Bihar Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
5. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Examination Controller Bihar Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
6. The Examination Controller-Cum-Addl. Secretary Bihar Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondent/s Appearance:
For the petitioner None For the State Mr. D.K.Sinha, A.C. to AAG 1 For the BPSC Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 19-01-2015 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for the State as well as the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') are present. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commission for appointment as Doctor the petitioner was not called in for interview. The petitioner's claim was considered and rejected by
Patna High Court CWJC No.19403 of 2010 (5) dt.19-01-2015 2 / 2 order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Respondent Commission assigning reasons therefor.
Counsel for the Commission has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 01.05.2012 passed in CWJC No. 962 of 2011 (Dr. Amit Anand & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) Whereby the claim of the petitioners as raised in this writ application was considered and rejected. It has also been pointed out that similar application for the reasons noted above has been rejected by this Court.
Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The application is dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U