Purushottam Kumar, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4252 of 2019 In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.126 of 2013 ====================================================== Purushottam Kumar, S/o Sri Triveni Prasad Singh, R/o Ward No. 16, VillagePaway, Pipariya, Police Station-Suryagarh, District Lakhisarai, Bihar-811309. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Ministry of Homes, Bihar, Patna.

2.

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

The Inspector General of Police (Bihar Military Police), Patna. 4.

The Chairman, Constable Selection Board, Northern Division Board, Begusarai.

5.

The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits that a show-cause on behalf of the opposite parties has been filed and served on the learned counsel for the petitioner and a hard copy of the same is being filed in the Court also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt application has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 29.04.2013 passed in CWJC No. 126 of 2013 whereby the learned writ court, while disposing of the writ

Patna High Court MJC No.4252 of 2019(5) dt.08-05-2023 2/2 application, had clearly directed that the remaining post of Constable, to be filled, had to be completed within a period of six months strictly in accordance with merit. Learned counsel for the State submits that from perusal of the show-cause it would manifest that the last candidate who was selected had thirteen marks and the petitioner was having eight marks, as such the petitioner was non-suited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel for the State, however seeks liberty to assail the order by which the petitioner was non-suited.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Court is not inclined to continue with the contempt application.

The contempt application stands dismissed with liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi-II U