Dusyant Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11430 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Dusyant Kumar, son of Late Bhuwaneshwar Nath, Resident of Village and P.O. Bara Kharauni, P.S.- Bihiya District- Bhojpur Pin 802166 (Bihar)

2. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Rsident of C/o R.B. Tripathi, Qtr. No. 08, Road No. 5 Near Sanjay Gandhi Stadium, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s

1. Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Police Headquarters, Old Secretariat, Patna

3. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Veterinary College, Patna through its Secretary

4. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O.- Veterinary College, Patna, District- Patna

5. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O.- Veterinary College, Patna District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have participated in the process of selection initiated under advertisement in the year, 2004 for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2014 seeking mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners.

3. No ground has been made out in the writ petition nor

Patna High Court CWJC No.11430 of 2014 dt.21-08-2018 2/2 any submission has been made in support of the prayer made in the writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has only submitted that under various orders passed in the various proceedings which have been annexed in the writ petition, relief has been granted to other candidates in the same selection process.

5. Since no ground has been made out for relief prayed for in the writ petition and in view of the fact that mandamus is sought for appointment in respect of an advertisement of 2004, this Court does not consider it appropriate to issue any direction on the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners.

6. Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date