Ravi Bhushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.377 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8900 of 2021 ====================================================== Ravi Bhushan Kumar Son of Late Haribansh Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- 36(2), Purunderpur, Bharat Lal Tent Road, P.S. Jakkanpur, DistrictPatna. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna.

3.

The Chairman, Staff Selection Commissioner, P.O.- Vetenary College, Patna. 4.

The Joint Secretary, Staff Selection Commissioner, P.O.- Vetenary College, Patna-14. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat Bailey Road, Patna. 5.

The Secretary, Education Department , Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Shilpa Singh GA12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 06-08-2024 The appellant is aggrieved with no appointment having been given to him despite his name figuring at serial no.33405 out of 34544. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued in the year 2010 and the selection is said to have been going on.

2. The learned Single Judge found that after 12 years there is no reason to appoint a person who had become aged by

Patna High Court L.P.A No.377 of 2022(4) dt.06-08-2024 2/2 then and unable to carry out the functions of physical education teacher.

3. The learned Government Advocate points out that the appellant is aged about 57 years as is seen from the records.

4. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that the person at serial no. 33404 got an appointment in the year 2012.

5. In that context, the petitioner should have immediately come to this Court, at least within a reasonable period when he was not appointed. The writ petition was filed in the year 2021 after almost 9 years from the previous candidate having been selected. The writ petition cannot be entertained for that additional ground also.

6. The appeal stands dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U