Prashant Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.16843 of 2008 (2) dt.18-09-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16843 of 2008 ======================================================

1. Prashant Kumar, son of Chandeshwar Prasad

2. Prabhat Kumar, son of Chandeshwar Prasad. Both resident of villageGhaghra, P.O. Baburvan via Parihar, District-Sitamarhi.

3. Niraj Kumar Verma, son of Narsingh Lal Das, resident of villageKhagarkia Basti Ward No.12, P.O. & District-Araria .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home, Patna.

2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bihar Patna5. Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Bihar State Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners: : None For Staff Selection Commission: Mr. S.S. Sunderam For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2015 No one appears for the petitioners. Learned counsels for the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission are present.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission that with respect to the same examination process for the appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police the matter had come up before this Court and ultimately on the basis of re-evaluation done as per the direction given by this Court by order dated 25.11.2008 passed in CWJC No. 9155/2008 (Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.): 2008

Patna High Court CWJC No.16843 of 2008 (2) dt.18-09-2015

(4) PLJR 825 and its analogous cases holding that the errors in the examinations giving rise to the lis in those writ applications having been corrected, the writ applications were disposed of in terms of the same.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Commission that the said order was not challenged and has attained finality.

In the foresaid view of the matter, the writ application is dismissed as not pressed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/- U