Santosh Kumar Paswan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6921 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Santosh Kumar Paswan and Anr Son of Jokhani Manjhi, Resident of Village- Rasalpur, P.S.- Pacharukhi, District- Siwan currently resident of Sahay Bhawan, Mohanpur Pump House Road, Punaichak, P.S. Punaichak, District- Patna.

2.

Pradeep Ram, Son of Ram Ekbal Ram Resident of Village- Jhunapur, Bujurga, P.S.- Mahadewa, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Bihar Public Service Commission through the Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 3.

The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.

The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Bihar at Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satendra Pd. , Advocate For the State :

Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate For the BPSC :

Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate :

Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 31-10-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents.

2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction to a respondents for giving five percent relaxation in minimum qualification of M.Ed. to the SC/ST applicants who have applied against Advertisement no.6 of 2016 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of lecturer in the Government training college, further prayer is made for grant of relaxation in experience to the applicants and also for direction to the Bihar Public Service

Patna High Court CWJC No.6921 of 2017(5) dt.31-10-2023 2/2 Commission to issue fresh results considering five percent relaxation to the SC/ST/disabled persons.

3. Without going into the facts of the case, it goes without saying that so far as the terms and percent of relaxation with respect to any appointment is concerned, in the opinion of the Court would lie solely within the domain of the policy decision of the Government concerned and cannot be varied and/or adjudicated upon under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Having heard the observations of this Court as also in view of the fact that the advertisement in which the relaxation have been sought for is of the year 2016 and appointments against the same have already been made, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ application.

5. This writ application stands disposed of as not pressed.

(Partha Sarthy, J) ajay/- U