Sudhir Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5142 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O Banbari Sharan Prasad Resident Of Village- Kundi, P.S- Noorsarai, Distt- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, Post- Veterinary College, Patna

3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, Post- Veterinary College, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC-4 Md.Raisul Haque Mr Satyabir Bharti =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-02-2016 The issue raised in the present writ application is not first of its kind. Similar candidates, who failed to get selected or appointed on the basis of the Graduate Level Combined Examination held in the year 2010, had already approached the High Court earlier, one of them being case of Ranjan Amit Kumar Singh & others versus the State of Bihar & others i.e. CWJC No.23703 of 2013, decided on 17.2.2014.

The short facts are that the petitioner claims that he had Physics, Chemistry, Maths as papers in graduation. He had given due declaration in this regard but still he was treated as a General

Patna High Court CWJC No.5142 of 2014 dt.24-02-2016 2/2 candidate and denied the right of appointment for extraneous reasons. The Court had dealt with the facts and the law in the case of Ranjan Amit Kumar Singh. The rational and reasoning provided therein for rejecting prayer of those candidates are also applied in the present set of facts since the facts are identical in nature with regard to some of those candidates. If a candidate wanted his claim to be considered under a specific category then he had to fill in the subject of which he was a specialist. Since the petitioner did not do so, the fault lies with the petitioner.

The writ application is dismissed for identical reasons, which were provided in CWJC No.23703 of 2013, which, the Court has been informed, has also been affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No.507 of 2014, decided on 23.7.2014.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U