← Library
Patna High CourtL.P.A/1777/2015dismissed

Sunit Kumar v. Amrit Raj And ORS

2017-09-11Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1777 of 2015 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1467 of 2014 ====================================================== Sunit Kumar, son of Late Sahib Lal, the Chairman, Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti), Bihar, Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Amrit Raj, son of Vibhishan Yadav, resident of village Araria, Post OfficeBalaha, Police Station- Parbatta, District- Khagaria. 2.

The State of Bihar.

3.

Upendra Kumar Singh, son of name not known, The Superintendent of Police, Rail, Patna (now Sri Prakash Nath Mishra, s/o- Sri Amar Nath Mishra), resident of Flat no. 49/60, Bailey Road, P.S.- Kotwali, Town + District- Patna.

4.

Sri Janardan Kumar, son of name not known, the Sub-divisional Officer, Gogri in the district of Khagaria.

5.

Sri Shailendra Kumar, son of name not known, The Circle Officer, Parbatta in the district of Khagaria.

6.

Bimal Kumar, son of name not known, the secretary, Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti), Bihar, Patna (since retired). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Sanjay Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mr. GP26- N.K. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 11-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.

Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

It is further observed that the litigation has to attain some finality keeping in view that the matter had earlier traveled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court earlier and a direction was issued by the Apex Court on the first round of objection relating to difference

Patna High Court LPA No.1777 of 2015(6) dt.11-09-2017 2/2 in the name of father of the candidate to accept the name indicated in the matriculation certificate. A new ground, which is sought to be now made out or urged, is not permissible, because there has to be some finality to judicial orders, passed in previous rounds of litigation on the bundle of facts. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) skm/- U