Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 6815 of 2013 ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR SON OF SHRI UMESH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARAI, P.S. GARHPURA, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Veterinary College, Patna - 800014

4. The Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary, Veterinary College, Patna - 800014

5. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna - 800015 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Arun Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e :

Mr Birju Prasad, GP XIII for the Commission : Mr S S Sundaram, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondentState as well as the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (for brevity, the Commission).

Petitioner has approached this Court alleging discrimination. It is his case that though he was having 149 marks, he was not called for interview. Other candidates securing 149 marks have been called for interview.

3 Counter affidavit has been filed by the Commission. Specific stand of the Commission in the counter affidavit is that

Patna High Court CWJC No.6815 of 2013 dt.01-11-2018 2/2 candidates two and half times of the number of vacancies, were to be called for interview. As per the said procedure, 22 posts were marked for general category and, as such, 55 candidates were to be called for interview. The petitioner was at Serial No 56 in the list of 55 candidates prepared on the basis of marks and date of birth of the successful candidates.

4 Since the said assertions made by the Commission has not been denied or disputed by the petitioner, no order needs to be passed in the instant writ petition. Even otherwise, the system, adopted by the Commission, appears to this Court to be a fair procedure. No discrimination can be alleged. 5 In view of the said procedure adopted by the Commission, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.11.2018 Transmission Date NA