Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1272 of 2015 ===========================================================
1. Ashok Kumar son of Natheswar Pd. Yadav
2. Manoj Kumar son of Natheswar Pd. Yadav resident of village Sukhashan, Police Station - Saharsa, District Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. District Judge Cum Chairman Appointment Committee, Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa.
3. Registrar-cum-Judge in Charge Administrative Authority, Civil Court, Saharsa, District - Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh For the Respondent/s :
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-02-2017 Heard Sri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Two petitioners , have approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , with a prayer to quash the entire selection process of Class IV employees
Patna High Court CWJC No.1272 of 2015 dt.07-02-2017 2/3 conducted by the Appointment Committee pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2012. The selection process was initiated for appointment of Class IV employees in Civil Court, Saharsa. The selection process has been assailed primarily on the ground that during interview no question was asked from the petitioners , only they were asked to put their signature on certain documents. It has been indicated in the present writ petition that petitioners were also informed by other candidates regarding the same treatment. In paragraph no. 5 of the petition a specific stand has been taken that petitioners participated and appeared before the interview board on 6.1.2014 and 16.12.2013 respectively.
On the ground that it was not a proper interview a prayer has been made to cancel the interview / selection process. In the writ petition itself it has been indicated that final result was published on 24.4.2014. Meaning thereby that candidates as per Advertisement were already selected. If for the time being it is assumed that petitioners were having any grievance regarding the conduct of interview in proper manner, in that event in normal course petitioners would have immediately raised their grievances but instead they participated and waited till the publication of result which was published as statement made in paragraph no. 9 of the petition on 24.4.2014. Even after publication of the result no step was taken to assail the result.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1272 of 2015 dt.07-02-2017 3/3 challenging /assailing the selection process knowing well that after the publication of result right has already been accrued to the selected persons but they have not even been impleaded as party respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to pass favourable order.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 09-02-2017 Transmission Date NA