Manish Kumar And ANR v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1307 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.564 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar son of Ramanand Yadav resident of village - Khari, P.S. - Murliganj, District - Madhepura.

2. Lakshman Kumar son of Bhupendra Prasad Mehta resident of village - Gokulpur, P.S. - K. Nagar, District - Purnea. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi.

2. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission (Central Zone), 8/A.B. Bailey Road, Allahabad, U.P.

3. The Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission (Central Zone), 8/A.B. Bailey Road, Allahabad, U.P.

4. The Commandant-cum-Chairman, Recruitment Board, Bathnaha, District - Araria, Bihar.

5. The Assistant Commandant-cum-Member-I, Recruitment Board, Bathanha, District - Araria, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commandant-cum-Member-II, Recruitment Board, Bathanha, District - Araria, Bihar.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D Sanjay (Addl. Soc. Gen.) For the SSC (Allahabad):

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 21-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Counsel for the SSC.

We have perused the order, dated 24.07.2017. The admitted position is that the last person, who had been selected

Patna High Court LPA No.1307 of 2017(3) dt.21-06-2018 2/2 and appointed on the post of a Constable, General Duty, in the Other Backward Caste Category had secured 61 marks. These two appellants have secured only 60 marks and 54 marks, respectively. There is no pleadings or evidence that any person with 60 marks or below 60 marks had been selected or appointed.

The finding being what they are and with no other illegality having been pointed out in the said selection and appointment, the dismissal of the writ application by the Learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) skm/- U