Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.806 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9613 of 2016 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar, son of Shri Chandrika Prasad, resident of Village - Paderry, Post Office - Satnag, Police Station - Chandi, District - Nalanda. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 6.

Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 17-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The appellant had earlier filed CWJC No.7626 of 2014 that was dismissed vide a judgement dated 18.08.2015 which is extracted hereinunder:- "The reasons given for Annexure- 10 in relation to the petitioner could be cogent and valid reasons for non- appointment of the petitioner on a class IV post. If petitioner has serious doubts about the correctness of the reasons indicated in the order

Patna High Court L.P.A No.806 of 2018(3) dt.17-07-2019 2/2 of rejection given by the three member committee, he has enough law in this country to demand, beget and assert his right afresh, if what has been found is found to be incorrect.

Writ application is dismissed with observation as above."

He thereafter filed a second writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge that has given rise to this appeal. The learned Single Judge has stated that in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, this second round of filing of a writ petition stands foreclosed keeping in view the judgement aforesaid.

We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge as we find that the said judgement has attained finality insofar as it relates to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal, therefore, lacks and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) Sunil/- U