Patna High CourtCWJC/14892/2011dfd for non appearance

Ashok Kumar Mandal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-15Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14892 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Ashok Kumar Mandal , son of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mandal, resident of village Balu Tola, Post A.G. Bazar, Police Station - Kursela, District Katihar

2. Surendra Kumar son of Yogendra Mandal, resident of village - Indira Gram, post Ayodhyaganj Bazar, Police station - Kursela, District - Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police State of Bihar Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel Administrative Reform Department),Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary

5. The Chairman of Central Selection Board of Constable , Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : AC to AAG 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-03-2016 On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Learned AC to AAG No. 2 as well as learned counsel for the respondent / Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) are present.

It was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and 5 that the petitioners have rightly not been appointed as constable due to the reason that the petitioner no. 1 was having lesser marks from the last candidate who was selected as constable

Patna High Court CWJC No.14892 of 2011 (3) dt.15-03-2016 2/2 in his category. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it was submitted that though the petitioner no. 2 was having equal marks to the last candidate, but in view of date of birth the candidate having equal marks has been accommodated and petitioner no. 2 has not been appointed.

Be that as it may, since none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed due to nonprosecution. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U