← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17219/2017disposed

Rishu Bajaj v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-27The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17219 of 2017 ====================================================== Rishu Bajaj, son of Mr. Anil Bajaj, resident of Flat No. 302, Pushpanjali Venkatesh Apartment, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna- 800001.

2. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna- 800001.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission, Santosh Mansion, B- Block, Near RPS Law College, Raghunath Path, Danapur, Patna- 801503.

4. The Member Secretary, Bihar Police Sub- Ordinate Service Commission, Santosh Mansion, B- Block, Near RPS Law College, Raghunath Path, Danapur, Patna- 801503.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K.Verma -Aag3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 27-11-2017 The issue in question with regard to providing reservation and job to the members of transgender community has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India and others, (2014)5 Supreme Court Cases 438 and, therefore, now once the Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines and principles and rendered the decision for the aggrieved persons to seek enforcement of the rights available to them, in case of a

Patna High Court CWJC No.17219 of 2017 (2) dt.27-11-2017 2/2 particular instance of violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme court, aggrieved persons are to ventilate the grievances in accordance with law, but for the said purpose again a Public Interest Litigation is not called for on the same very issue. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, this application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U N.H./-