Patna High Court - Orders
Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 July, 2018
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3095 of 2016
======================================================
Deepak Kumar
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Adv
Ms. Uma Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Binita Singh, SC-28 with
Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, AC to SC-28.
For the Respondent-SSC : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
17 12-07-2018Heard Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Binita Singh, learned Standing Counsel No.28 for the State assisted by Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh and Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Staff Selection Commission.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties the only issue which comes up for consideration is, whether having advertised 323 vacancies under the general category with stipulations of enhancement whether the vacancy could have been reduced unilaterally. He prays for adjustment against any vacancy in general category.
Ms. Binita Singh, learned Standing Counsel No.28 while opposing the contentions informs that whatever the vacanc ies that were existing after the completion of selection process in Patna High Court CWJC No.3095 of 2016 (17) dt.12-07-2018 2 question, were advertised in 2015 and that selection process also is completed. According to learned State Counsel the prayer of the petitioner for adjustment against the current vacancies also cannot be entertained.
Such argument has been contested by Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to submit that a right created in the petitioner in the advertisement of 2013 can not be taken away by a subsequent advertisement nor the respondents have any right to reduce the vacancy advertised.
The parties have been heard at length.
The judgment is reserved.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/Anjula U