Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16344 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.
Santosh Kumar, male, aged about 39 years, Son of Late Arjun Singh, Resident of Village- Ramjichak Digha, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna. 2.
Sanjay Kumar, male, aged about 35 years, Son of Suresh Tiwary, Resident of Village- Chhitrauli, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. 3.
Janmejay Kumar, male, aged about 39 years, Son of Rajdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Barai, P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda. 4.
Jyoti Mani, male, aged about 39 years, Son of Shiv Shankar Prasad, Resident of Village- Gajichak, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, P.O.- Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna- 14. 5.
The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road, P.O.- Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna- 14. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv.
` Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-08-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this
2/4 Court for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them on the post of Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Police after exempting them from PET test against an advertisement which was issued in the year 2004 by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna.
3. Similar such matter were decided by this Court and by order dated 02.04.2019, this Court, taking into account the orders passed by this Hon'ble Supreme Court in various petitions as also Contempt Petition (C) No. 1711 of 2018, dismissed such petitions on the ground of the matter being stale and the selection process as against the advertisement of 2004 having been completed a long time ago.
4. Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners however taking exception to the observations made in the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5186 of 2019, which has been referred to in the preceding paragraph, has stated and informed this Court that even after the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court on 01.11.2018 directing
3/4 that in case of refusal of the State Government to accede to the request of the petitioners therein, they would have no further right to agitate their claim before any Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in two matters, entertained such petitions. In one such case, an order was passed directing the petitioner therein to withdraw the writ petition from the High Court. In the other case, which has been entertained by the Supreme Court after the order dated 01.11.2018, notices have been issued to the Commission.
5. In any view of the matter, considering the fact that the issue now stands closed with the selection process having been completed long time back, this Court is not inclined to entertain such petition seeking appointment on the post of Sub-Inspectors against the advertisement of the year 2004.
6. Under similar circumstances, this Court has refused to entertain such petitions on similar set of facts in C.W.J.C. No. 5424 of 2019 and other analogous case vide order dated 11.04.2019.
4/4
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 28.08.2019 Transmission Date N/A