Gopal Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 25017 of 2013 ====================================================== Gopal Kumar Singh, Son Of Shri Raj Kishore Singh, Resident Of Village and Post - Chouria, P.S. - Fesar, District - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Chairman of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna 3.

The Joint Secretary-Cum-Director, Prison and Home Department, the State Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.

The Inspector General of Prison, the State Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rajiv Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-05-2019 Matter has been listed today in the Summer Vacations as the learned counsel for the petitioner was desirous for consideration of his case during vacation.

The slip for listing was filed pursuant to notice dated 08th May 2019, published prior to the vacation. Matter is, accordingly, taken up for consideration as both parties are present and willing to assist the Court for disposal of the matter.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

Writ petition has been filed claiming exemption from physical test as petitioner claims to be a Home Guard candidate

Patna High Court CWJC No.25017 of 2013(2) dt.23-05-2019 2/2 in the process of selection for Constables conducted pursuant to Advertisement No 1 of 2013.

Specific stand of the State is that the Resolution dated 04.09.2013 providing for such exemption came subsequent to the Advertisement under which the petitioner had applied. The exemption, therefore, was not to have retrospectivity and not applicable to the selection process in question where petitioner had participated.

Petitioner's counsel submits that he has also applied in Advertisement No 10 of 2013 published subsequently. Since, the Resolution dated 04.09.2013 was applicable in Advertisement No 10 of 2013, no further order is required to be passed in the instant proceedings as learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform the Court as to what has been the outcome of the subsequent selection process arising out of Advertisement No 10 of 2013 in which the petitioner has applied.

Writ petition deserves no consideration. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U