← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/18385/2019dismissed

Husn Ara v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-20Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18385 of 2019 ====================================================== Husn Ara Daughter of Imamuddin, R/o Masjid Khodai Bari, Gopalpur, Bakerganj, Siwan, Dist-Siwan.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Patna. 4.

The Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission through its Secretary, Santosh Manson, B-Block, Raghunath Path, Danapur, Patna. 5.

The Secretary, Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission, Santosh Manson, B-Block, Raghunath Path, Danapur, Patna. 6.

The Officer on Special Duty, Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission, Santosh Manson, B-Block, Raghunath Path, Danapur, Patna. 1.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar For the Respondent State:

Mr. Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC-8 For the BPSSC :

Mr. Sanjay Pandey Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 The petitioner was an applicant for selection against the post of Police Sub Inspector, advertised through Advertisement No. 1/17. It is her case that she had qualified the preliminary test and written examination (Main). She, however, could not complete the Physical Evaluation Test (PET) because she had suffered certain injuries. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to allow her to take the PET by giving her another chance. It is not in dispute that selection, based on the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.18385 of 2019(2) dt.20-09-2019 2/2 Advertisement No. 1/17, is complete in all respect and appointments have been made on the posts. The petitioner, admittedly, could not participate in the PET. No provision has been shown to me, which could have permitted the authorities to allow the petitioner another chance to appear for the PET. In such view of the matter, no relief, as sought, can be granted.

This writ application is accordingly dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U