Mahendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.535 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Mahendra Kumar aged about 44 years, male, Son of Hira Lal Ram resident of Village- Near Temple Adapur, Beldarwa, P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran.

2.

Suresh Ram aged about 41 years, male, Son of Rajan Ram resident of Village- Sirisiya Mal, P.S.- Nakardei, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

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

That Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

4.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 5.

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna. 6.

The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna.

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Ajay Kumar AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Relief substantially claimed in the instant writ proceedings is for being appointed on the post of Sub Inspectors against advertisement number 704 of 2004, since 133 persons have been appointed in terms of order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2797 of 2017.

Patna High Court CWJC No.535 of 2020(4) dt.05-07-2022 2/2

3. State counsel submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has limited the relief to 133 persons. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim benefit of the order of the Apex Court.

4. In view thereof, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any benefit for appointment as Sub Inspectors, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 704 of 2004.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show otherwise though reliance has been placed on certain orders passed prior to the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil No.) 2795-2797/2017.

6. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court limiting the relief to 133 persons, and no case having been made out by petitioners to claim appointment against advertisement No. 704 of 2004, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction for petitioners appointment.

7. The application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U