Shailesh Kumar Pandey, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23349 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Shailesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Ram Singasan Pandey, Resident of Village-Srinagar, Police Station-Ishipur Barahat, District-Bhagalpur, at present Resdient of Flat No. 502, Plutos Oasis Dhanaut Road Mahuabagh, Police Station-Rupaspur, District-Patna.

2.

Amrendra Kumar, Son of Sahdeo Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Naya Chhawani, Police Station-Bariarpur, District-Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, P.O.-Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14. 5.

The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road, P.O.- Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sheev Shankar Prasad ( SC8 ) For the BSSC :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-11-2019 In view a detailed order having been passed on 24.07.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 14618 of 2010, no separate order is required to be passed in this petition as well. In the case which has been referred to above, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 14618 of 2019, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked with respect to appointment process which had begun in the year 2004 and the petitioners therein had a grievance that the respondents had not

Patna High Court CWJC No.23349 of 2019(2) dt.26-11-2019 2/2 maintained the roster while formulating and publishing the result of the written test, which according to them had caused serious prejudice to some of the aspirants. After detailing the developments in the appointment process over a period of 15 years, this Court found that there was no merit in such a prayer and dismissed the writ petition.

There is no other way in which this petition also can be dealt with.

This writ petition therefore is dismissed in the light of the order which has been referred to above. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/- U