Kameshwar Yadav v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7430 of 2015 ====================================================== Kameshwar Yadav S/o Nami Yadav Resident of village+ P.O.- Brahampur, P.S.- Brahampur, District- Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi- 180011.

2. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Central Region, Department of Personnel & Training, 8A-B, Beli Road, Allahabad.

3. The Secretary, Staff Selectioin Commissoin, 8A-B, Beli Road, Allahabad.

4. The Deputy Inspector General, MET Centre, S.S.B., S.H.Q. Modern Agro Agencies building, Chakkar Maidan, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Govind For the Resp. No. 1 & 4 : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma, CGC For the Resp No.2 & 3 : Anjani Kr. Sharan, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:- "(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to hold review medical examination of the petitioner.

(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable after his review medical examination." This Court in absence of any explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioner on being declared unfit by Medical Board on 06.08.2011 had remained silent till now has not been able to understand the reasons for delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court for raising a cause of action which was available to the petitioner in the year 2011.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7430 of 2015 (2) dt.12-05-2015 Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this application to move competent authority for filing a fresh representation.

The petitioner may happily do so but it is made clear that he will now have now no liberty to move this court again for the same cause of action as raised herein.

With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/- U