Patna High CourtCWJC/1832/2015disposed

Md. Shadab Amber v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1832 of 2015 ====================================================== Md. Shadab Amber, aged about 19 years Son of Md. Noor Alam Resident of Q. No- C-82, Banka Road, Near Masjid Wasiuddin, P.O - Bankipur, P.S - Gandhi Maidan District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Special Secretary-cum-Director (Urdu), Cabinet Secretariat Department (Urdu Directorate), Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Additional Secretary-cum-Director (Urdu), Urdu Directorate Patna.

6. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna through its Secretary.

7. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna.

8. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : AC to GP - 9 Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-02-2017 Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader - 9 as well as Sri Chandra Bhushan Das, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent/Bihar Staff Selection Commission. In the present writ petition, primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved with the advertisement, which was published in the year 2014, for the purposes of appointment of Lower Division Clerk

Patna High Court CWJC No.1832 of 2015 (3) dt.13-02-2017 2/2 (L.D.C.) and Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.).

Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that after advertisement, applications were entertained and examination was also conducted, however; he submits that subsequently, the examination has already been cancelled.

The Court is of the opinion that once pursuant to advertisement, applications were entertained and examination was conducted, there is no reason to examine the correctness of the advertisement. If subsequently any cause arises, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U