Md.Imtiaz Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18786 of 2010 ====================================================== Md. Imtiaz Ahmad S/O Md. Mustafa Ahsan R/O Mohalla- Shekhana Kalan, Bihar Sharif, P.S.- Bihar, Distt.- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna

4. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna

5. Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar

6. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar

7. Examination Controller-Cum-Additional Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar

8. The District Magistrate, Nalanda At Bihar Sharif

9. Shiv Kishore Choudhary S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kishore Sinha : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kr. Singh AC to AAG-6 For the BPSC : Mr. Satyabir Bharti : Ms. Aparna Arun ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-06-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for declaring the petitioner as a successful candidate for appointment on the post of Drug Allopathic Inspector.

The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued bearing Advertisement no. 2/2008 for the purposes of making appointments on the post of Drug Allopathic Inspectors. The petitioner had also applied in the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.18786 of 2010 (2) dt.26-06-2018 2/2 selection process and the interview was to be held on 28.09.2010, wherein one of the conditions as contained in Clause 8(ii) is to the effect that the candidates claiming the benefit of reservation, were required to produce certificates from the district level officers of the place of their permanent residence. The final result is said to have been published on 03.10.2010, wherein the petitioner did not find his roll number and has thus approached this Court.

The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that firstly, the petitioner had not submitted the requisite certificate for the purposes of claiming the benefit of reservation, hence he could not be considered under the reserved category and secondly, the petitioner was considered under the general category, on account of his non-submission of the requisite certificate for the purposes of treating him as a reserved category candidate, but he failed to qualify under the said general category. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed.