Vinod Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16580 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.
Vinod Kumar Suman Son of Baldeo Prasad, Resident of Balipur, P.O. - Bahrampur, P.S.- Dhanarua, District - Patna.
2.
Shivdhar Singh, Son of Gaya Singh, Resident of Vijaypura, P.O. - Vijaypura, P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna.
3.
Harilal Kumar, Son of Ramanand Pd. Yadav, Resident of Kaili, P.O. - Nawasichak, P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Director General Cum Commandant General, Govt. of Bihar, Home Guard, Patna.
2.
The District Selection Committee, Bihar, Home Guard through its Chairman, District- Gaya.
3.
The District Magistrate, Patna.
4.
The Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5.
The Senior District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Patna. 6.
The District Welfare Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Manish Kumar ( Gp 4 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 22-04-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1(i). For quashing of the order dated 13.05.2023 passed by Senior District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Patna (Respondent No. 5) by which the petitioners was communicated that their application dated 20.04.2023 have been rejected by the District Selection Committee, Patna on the ground that Appellate-Cum- Complaint Redressal cell was formed at the time of Physical test for
Patna High Court CWJC No.16580 of 2023(2) dt.22-04-2024 2/2 consideration the objection and such type of application is not considerable at present whereas the respondents have not considered their representation/objection which was filed on 13.06.2022 i.e. within time and as such the action of the respondents is quite illegal, arbitrary and malafide and impugned order is fit to be quashed. (ii). For directing the respondents to consider the application dated 13.06.2022 and to select the petitioners who have been stopped one minute before the time fixed when they are participating in the running test whereas in an identical matter the respondent authorities have allowed the other candidate to continue and complete the running rest."
2.
After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to approach the Respondent authorities for redressal of their aforesaid grievances. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
3.
The present writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U