Patna High Court - Orders
Sunita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 August, 2014
Author: Jayanandan Singh
Bench: Jayanandan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15487 of 2011
======================================================
1. Kamlesh Dikshit Raj, Aged About 27 Years S/O Shashi Bhushan Prasad
R/O Vill. Gauri, Police Station - Chandi, District - Nalnda
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through, The Director General Of Police, Bihar,
Patna
2. The Director General Of Police ( Dgp ), Bihar, Patna
3. The Supperintendent Of Police, District - Nalanda
4. The Chairman, Central Selection Board, Back Harding Road Patna,
District - Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13801 of 2011
======================================================
1. Bishal Kumar, Oll No. 60490052 S/O Bhola Ray R/O Vill. Gonwan,
P.O.-Sadisopur, Distt.-Patna.
2. Mithilesh Kumar, Roll No. 62110693 S/O Ram Bhawan Singh R/O Vill.-
Sipahi Tila Ganesh Bigha, P.O. + Distt. Arwal.
3. Sanjay Kumar, Roll No. 78080081 S/O Ramdeo Yadav R/O Vill. Kakar
Ghati, P.O. Bhuskaul, Distt.-Darbhanga.
4. Sunil Kumar, Roll No. 62040049 S/O Bindeshwari Singh R/O Vill. And
P.O.-Kodra, P.S.-Paliganj, Distt. Patna.
5. Raj Kishore Ranjan, Roll No. 78020564 S/O Laxman Yadav R/O Vill. +
P.O. Vasalia, P.S.-Sadar, Distt. Darbhanga.
6. Ranjeet Kumar, Roll No. 60360141 S/O Shankar Prasad R/O Vill.-
Jalalpur, P.O.-Sahay Nagar, P.S.-Rupasur, Distt.-Patna.
7. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/O Jai Narayan Yadav R/O Vill. Jai, P.O. Gujrauli,
P.S.-Banghi, Distt.-Darbhanga.
8. Akhilesh Kumar, Roll No. 61150466 S/O Kailash Prasad Yadav R/O
Vill. Gamanpura, P.O.-Aadampur, P.S. Girimak, Distt. Nalanda.
9. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Umesh Prasad R/O Vill. Barda, P.O.-Sadapur,
P.S.-Rani Talab Kanpa, Distt.-Patna.
10. Vijay Kumar S/O Bisndeo Yadav R/O Vill.-Chhotki Amwan, P.S.-
Akarbarpur, Distt. Nawada.
11. Mithilesh Kumar S/O Ram Naresh Prasad Yadav R/O Vill. Badheta,
P.O. Adampur, P.S. Girithek, Distt.-Nalanda.
12. Birendra Kumar, Roll No. 62010054 S/O Bhoju Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.
+ P.O. Rajwara, P.S.-Atrai, Distt. Gaya.
13. Satendra Kumar, Roll No. 77050737 S/O Heera Lal Prasad R/O Naya
Gaon, P.O.-Sohajpur, P.O.-Hathua, Distt.-Gopalganj.
14. Anil Prasad Yadav, Roll No. 77040236 S/O Humer Prasad Yadav R/O
Vill. Mahaniya Saledpur, P.O.-Saledpu, P.S.-Bisambharpur, Distt.
Gopalganj.
15. Dular Yadav, Roll No. 77010673 S/O Sri Suraj Yadav R/O Vill.
Lohijai, P.S.-Sindhwaliya, Distt. Gopalganj.
16. Sanjiv Kumar Grauy, Roll No. 61010116 S/O Ravindra Prasad R/O
Vill.-Toil Bigha, P.O.-Gorawan, P.S.-Silao, Distt.-Nalanda.
17. Vijay Kumar, Roll No. 71240006 S/O Parmeshwar Rai R/O Vill.-
Khajwatta Sultanpur, P.O.-Sikandar, Distt.-Vaishali.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
2/69
18. Pankaj Kumar, Roll No. 71030429 S/O Suresh Rai R/O Vill. Nd P.O.
Warishpur, Distt. Vaishali.
19. Nanheshwar Kumar, Roll No. 62320639 S/O Kariyu Singh R/O Vill.-
Yawhar, P.O.-Anandpur, P.S.-Karpi, Distt. Arwal.
20. Sunil Kumar, Roll No. 62330145 S/O Suryadeo Prasad R/O Vill. Pahla
Bigha, P.O. Kanko, Distt.-Jehanabad.
21. Albela Kumar, Roll No. 62050716 S/O Yamuna Prasad R/O Vill. Marki
Chak, P.O.-Telari, P.S.-Nimchak Bathani, Distt.-Gaya.
22. Jitendra Kumar, 60180110 S/O Basudeo Rai R/O Vill. Chakmusha, P.O.
Mahammadpur, P.S. Jainpur, Distt. Patna.
23. Satendra Prasad, Roll No. 61050237 S/O Dhanwi Prasad R/O Vill.
Mishri, P.S. Bhaktiyarpur, Distt. Patna.
24. Prince Kumar, Roll No. 60190288 S/O Shyam Deo Prasad R/O Vill.-
Baikathpur, Sadrichak, P.S.-Khushrupur, Distt. Patna.
25. Chandrahash Kumar, Roll No. 73020528 S/O Ram Janam Prasad R/O
Vill.-Baikathpur, Krishnsuta, P.S.-Khushrupur, Distt. Patna.
26. Santosh Kumar Singh, Roll No. 68020620 S/O Sahdeo Singh R/O Vill.-
Sawari, P.O. Khiriya, P.S.-Kachhwa, Distt.-Rohtas.
27. Awadhesh Kumar, Roll No. 80020403 S/O Gurucharan Rai R/O Vill. +
P.O.-Dumri, P.S.-Motipur, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.
28. Laxuman Prasad, Roll No. 70130030 S/O Anandi Prasad R/O Vill. +
P.O.-Mahbal, P.S.-Motipur, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.
29. Munna Kumar, Roll No. 70120349 S/O Yogendra Rai R/O Vill.-
Raksha, P.S.-Karja, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.
30. Prem Shankar Kumar, Roll No. 70400018 S/O Baidyanath Singh R/O
Vill. Adda, P.O. Haridaspur, P.S.-Kanti, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.
31. Vishal Kumar Rana S/O Ram Janam Rana R/O Vill.-Bhatwaliya, P.O. +
P.S.-Meenapur, District.
32. Nawal Kumar, Roll No. 61160304 S/O Chhote Yadav R/O Vill.-
Golapur, P.O.-Manhara, P.S.-Deep Nagar, Distt.-Nalanda.
33. Arvind Kumar, Roll No. 62240183 S/O Ramashis Yadav R/O Vill.
Takaya, P.O.-Kuriyan, P.S.-Kurtha, Distt.-Arwal.
34. Sanoj Kumar, Roll No. 62012378 S/O Sushil Kumar Mehta R/O Vill.-
Barewa, P.S.-Khajhapur, Distt.-Ufasil, Distt. Gaya.
35. Rajiv Kumar, Roll No.62230342 S/O Ritu Yadav R/O Vill.-Sinduwar,
P.O.-Dangra, P.S.-Mohanpur, Distt.-Gaya.
36. Rajiv Ranjan, Roll No. 60600484 S/O Indradeo Prasad R/O Vill.-
Mamaraha, Khawad, P.O. + P.S.-Pandarak, Distt.-Patna.
37. Sunil Kumar, Roll No. 60330422 S/O Rajendra Rai R/O Vill.-Gop Kita,
P.O. + P.S.-Pandarak, Distt.-Patna.
38. Sanjeet Kumar, Roll No. 60380123 S/O Ramashray Prasad R/O Vill. +
P.O.-More, P.S.-Mokama, Distt.-Patna.
39. Arvind Kumar, Roll No. 60190106 S/O Sri Ratneshwar Prasad R/O
Vill.-Bitali Gali, Gola Road, P.O. + P.S.-Danapur, Distt.-Patna.
40. Abhay Kumar, Roll No. 60040168 S/O Sakhi Chandra Yadav R/O Vill.
+ P.O. + P.S.-Danapur Cant, Distt. Patna.
41. Vijendra Kumar, Roll No. 62300062 S/O Ramesh Yadav R/O Vill.-Bhat
Bigha, P.O. + P.S.-Rampur, Distt.-Gaya.
42. Ujjawal Narayan Singh, Roll No. 62040753 S/O Shiv Ram Singh R/O
Mahadeopur, P.O. Guraru, P.S.-Kora, Distt.-Gaya.
43. Suresh Aazad, Roll No. 62150300 S/O Sri Bansi Yadav R/O Vill.-
Ramdhanpur Pipal Gali, P.O.-R.S. Gaya, P.S.-Kotwali, Distt. Gaya.
44. Mithilesh Kumar, Roll No. 62012644 S/O Sri Sahdeo Yadav R/O
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
3/69
Angraily, P.O. Bithosarif, P.S.-Chadaity, Distt.-Gaya.
45. Shailendra Kumar, Roll No. 60370123 S/O Jamadar Ray R/O Vill. +
P.O.-Anandpur, P.S. Bihata, Distt.-Patna.
46. Sohan Lal Yadav, Roll No.64110169 S/O Sri Jagdeo Singh R/O Vill.
Darar, P.O.-Jaitiya, P.S.-Goh, Distt.-Aurangabad.
47. Pramod Kumar Singh, Roll No. 64120199 S/O Sri Dinesh Singh R/O
Vill. Beni Kethi, P.O. Sighari, P.S.-Goh, Dstt. Aurangabad.
48. Shashikant Ray, Roll No. 62230359 S/O Late Brahmdeo Ray R/O Vill.
Ashelempur, P.O. Chauri, P.S.-Daudnagar, Distt. Aurangabad.
49. Munna Kumar, Roll No. 75180109 S/O Sri Amar Nath Yadav R/O Vill.
And P.O. Kasahi Taranwa, P.S.-Kopa, Distt.-Chhapra.
50. Pintu Kumar, Roll No. 71100366 S/O Sri Lalu Ray R/O Vill. Lal
Pokhar, P.O.-Dighikala, P.S.-Hajipur Sadar, Distt.-Vaishali.
51. Shyam Narayan Ydav, Roll No. 64010516 S/O Sri Bigan Yadav R/O
Vill. Girdhar Bigaha, P.O.-Mongiya, P.S.-Tandawa, Distt.-Aurangabad.
52. Shiv Bahadar Kumar, Roll No. 63030012 S/O Sri Ram Khelawan Singh
R/O Vill.-Aeraki, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.-Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Home (Police), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Deptt. (Personnel
Administration Reform Deptt.), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna, Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2822 of 2012
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Yadav Son Of Harensra Yadav Resident Of Village-Diulia-
Babhani Police Station, Ramnagar, District-West Champaran
2. Shashi Kant Yadav Son Of Binod Prasad Yadav Resident Of Village-
Diulia-Babhani Police Station, Ramnagar, District-West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, (Personnel
Administrative Reform Department), Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.762 of 2012
======================================================
1. Shobha Kumari D/O Sri Sidheshwar Prasad & W/O Sri Sudhanshu
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
4/69
Kumar R/O Vill Lodhipur, P.S.Hulashganj, Disttjehanabad At Present
Residing At Road No.4, In The Campus Of Ma Hospital, Rajendra Nagar,
P.S. Kadamkuan At & Distt-Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General Of Police Government Of Bihar, Main Secretariat,
Patna
3. The Secretary, Central Selection Board Of Constable(Csbc) Bihar At
Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police Shekhpura
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16871 of 2011
======================================================
1. Anshu Raj Son Of Sri Ram Prit Yadav Resident Of Village- Kokarsa,
P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Government Of
Bihar, Patna
2. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna
3. Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar Patna Through
Its Secretary
4. Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) , Bihar,
Patna
5. The Secretary, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16937 of 2011
======================================================
1. Anup Kumar S/O Pramod Kumar Singh Roll No. 68120415, R/O
Village- Garura, P.O.- Devmarkandey, P.S.-Karakat (Gorari), District-
Rohtas At Sasaram
2. Sulekha Kumari D/O Kamal Prasad Yadav Roll No. 86060247, R/O
Village - Aminabad, P.O.- Semapur, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar
3. Bipin Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Roll No. 68050913, R/O Village -
Raghunathpur, P.O.- Motha, P.S.- Karakat (Gorari), District - Rohtas
4. Neha Kumari D/O Vijay Kumar Goswami Roll No. 84050181, R/O At +
P.O.- B.K. Sthan, Via- Polytechnic, Distt.- Purnea
5. Pradip Kumar S/O Nepal Prasad Singh Roll No. 86010357, R/O Village-
Bawan Ganj, P.O.- Binjee, Via-Semapur, Distt.-Katihar
6. Vikesh Kumar S/O Ramswarath Paswan Roll No. 610660015, R/O
Village- Railly, P.S.- Pandarar, District- Patna
7. Dular Paswan S/O Keshav Ram Roll No. 68010399, R/O Village-
Dahiyari, P.O.- Sikariya, P.S.-Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas At Sasaram
8. Mritunjay Prasad S/O Ramashankar Prasad Roll No. 67100002, R/O
Village- Puraina, P.O.- Nachap, P.S.- Murar, Distt.- Buxar
9. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Jageshwar Saw Roll No. 6101602, R/O Mohalla-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
5/69
Mangalasthan (Ramchandrapur), P.O.- Biharsharif, P.S.- Laheri, District-
Nalanda
10. Birju Kumar S/O Late Kanhaiya Prasad Sonkar Roll No. 69010466, R/O
Mohalla- Kila, Nhear Of Police Station, P.O.- Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram,
District- Rohtas
11. Suraj Kumar S/O Upendra Prasad Roll No. 61151255, R/O Village-
Kalyanpur Bali, P.O.- Jagatpur, P.S.- Chandi, Distt.- Nalanda
12. Pankaj Kumar Paswan S/O Rajbansh Paswan Roll No. 69150126, R/O
Village- Gajaundha, P.O.- Baraila, P.S.- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas
13. Santosh Ram S/O Dashrath Ram Roll No. 69060453, R/O Village -
Rampur, P.O.- Sabar, P.S.- Karamchat, District- Kaimur At Bhabhua
14. Birendra Kumar S/O Lalan Ram Roll No. 69030666, R/O Village-
Mouni, P.O.- Baraila, P.S.- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas
15. Pradeep Kumar S/O Heeralal Mandal Roll No. 87280362, R/O Village-
Purani Sarai, P.O.- Champanagar, Via - Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
16. Arvind Kumar S/O Shyamlal Ram Roll No. 7532-452, R/O At + P.O.-
Bigha, P.S.- Manjhi, District- Chapra
17. Shatrughan Prasad Gupta S/O Sri Ram Ayodhya Sao R/O Village +
P.O. - Barka Dumra, P.S.- Muffasil, Arrah, District- Bhojpur
18. Santosh Kumar S/O Rajendra Paswan Roll No. 60330421, R/O Village-
Chauharmal Nagar, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District - Patna
19. Raj Kumar S/O Suresh Sahai Roll No. 58929726, R/O Village- Subhai
South Tola, P.O.- Subhai, P.S.- Hajipur (Sadar), Distt.- Vaishali
20. Rima Kumari D/O Ram Vinay Singh Roll No. 60340057, R/O Village-
Patut, P.O.- Patut, P.S.- Rani Talab Kanpa, District- Patna
21. Dhirendra Kumar Ray S/O Kailash Ray Roll No. 63080262, R/O
Village - Prabhat Nagar, P.O.- Bhaikh, P.S.- Makhdumpur, Distt.-
Jehanabad
22. Shardhanjali Kumari D/O Balmukund Sharma Roll No.
.........................., R/O Village- Shampur, P.O.- Damodarpur (Baldha), P.S.-
Nagar Nausa, District- Nalanda
23. Shrawan Kumar S/O Ramanand Mochi Roll No. 62080140, R/O
Village- Paharpur, P.S.- Medical College, Gaya, District- Gaya
24. Sunita Kumari W/O Rajesh Kumar Roll No. 62220067, R/O Village-
Sonaut, P.O.- Goga, P.S.- Muffasil, District - Patna
25. Niranjan Kumar S/O Akhilesh Thakur Roll No. 64010070, R/O
Vill.+Post- Tomara, P.S.- Pauthu, District- Aurangabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna
Through Its Secretary
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20029 of 2011
======================================================
1. Sunita Kumari W/O Sri Bindalal Prasad R/O Village-Karanbigha Poteri,
P.S. Mhediya, District-Arwal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
6/69
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P. Bihar, Patna.
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna,
Through Its Secretary.
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13800 of 2011
======================================================
1. Amar Kant Kumar, Roll No. 87020126 S/O Karmdev Paswan R/O Vill.
Ranipur, P.O. Lagmahat, Via Mathurapur, P.S. Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur.
2. Dharmendra Paswan, Roll No. 61120252 S/O Sri Sarvan Paswan R/O
Vill. + P.O. Margaon, P.S. Hulasganj, Jehanabad.
3. Rakesh Kumar, Roll No. 74060533 S/O Laxman Ram R/O Navranga
Bettiah Ward No. 33, Near Vishkarmma Mandir Sipahi Lall General Store,
P.S. Bettiah, West Champaran.
4. Chandan Kumar, Roll No. 78130118 S/O Satish Prasad Mahto Address
C/O Dr. Maheshwar Panday, Benta Chowk Laheria Sarai, Darbhanga.
5. Lulie Kumari, Roll No. 60470278 D/O Dharmnath Prasad R/O Shivpur
Khash Mahal Mahe Ndru Near Of Pani Tandy Patna.
6. Brijesh Matiha, Roll No. 74090301 S/O Rajesh Baitha R/O Vill. And
P.O. Ram Prasawa Na, P.S. Sathi, Via Lauriya, West Champaran.
7. Kumari Premlata Sinha, Roll No. 61020402 D/O Luv Kush Sinha R/O
Habibpur, P.O. Habibpur, P.S. Prawalpur, Distt. Nalanda.
8. Shiwnarayan Paswan, Roll No. 60220302 S/O Balwan Paswan R/O Vill.
Chanawakh, P.O. And P.S. Kudra, Distt. Kaimur.
9. Bhola Kumar, Roll No. S/O Ram Balak Paswan R/O Vil. Rastha, P.O.
Gunjarchak, P.S. Chandi, Distt. Nalanda.
10. Balkishor Ram, Roll No. S/O Bindeshwari Ram R/O Bhelwa, P.O.
Simrana, Via Mathani, Distt. Madhepura.
11. Jitendra Kumar S/O Sushil Kumar Bage R/O Vill. Makhdumpur,
Dumra, P.O. Barkh Dumra, P.S. Mufasil (Ara), Bhdipur.
12. Yogendra Kumar Ram S/O Jhamlal Ram R/O Vill. Garbhu Das Block
Staff, Basant Vihar Collony Dighi, Near Gumti No. 54 A/C Hajipur,
Vaishali.
13. Rukmini Kumari C/O Rahl Kumar, Vill. And P.O.-Labhganw, P.S. Via
Khagaria, Vaishali.
14. Ganga Ram Paswan Raj Kumar Paswan, R/O Vill. Bikrampr Balia,
P.O. Sakri, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Madhubani.
15. Pravind Kumar Manjhi S/O Ranglal Manjhi R/O Vill. Panchpatr, P.O.
Mukrera, P.S. Rivilganj, Saran.
16. Krishna Kant Paswan S/O Ram Naresh Paswan R/O Vill. Jethuli, P.S.
Kachchi Dargah, P.S. Gatuha, Distt.-Patna.
17. Pyare Lal Choudhary S/O Sarju Choudhary R/O Vill. Par Nawadah
Dobhra Par, P.O. Nawada, P.O. Nawada, Distt. Nawada.
18. Balmiki Prasad Choudhary S/O Muneswar Choudhary R/O Vill.
Gangta, P.O. Chhotashekhpura, P.S. Narhat, Distt. Nawada.
19. Nishi Ranjan Kumar Nirala S/O Ramdhyan Paswan R/O Vill. Manjhos,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
7/69
P.S. Manjhos, P.S. Makhdumpur, Jehanabad.
20. Ajay Kumar Ram S/O Ujiyar Ram R/O Vill. Quazipur, P.O. Dumri, P.S.
Simri, Buxar.
21. Akhtar Ali S/O Md. Haidar Ali R/O Vill. Quazipur, P.O. Dumri, P.S.
Simri, Buxar.
22. Dharmendra Kumar Manjhi S/O Pathloo Manjhi R/O Vill. Galimapur,
P.O. Rampur [Garkha], P.S. Garkha, Distt. Chapra, Saran.
23. Rinki Kumari C/O Jethan Paswan, R/O Vill. Fulsaiher, P.O. Kurtha,
P.S. Kurtha, Arwal.
24. Satyendra Kumar S/O Late Shambhu Sharma R/O Vil. Kewali, P.O.
Churi, P.S. Chandauri, Gaya.
25. Dhanjee Kumar S/O Bishwannath Ram R/O Vill. P.O. Ratanpur, P.S.
Ara Mufasil, Vaya Chandwa, Bhojpur.
26. Pankaj Kumar Rajak S/O Bhola Rajak R/O Vill. Madhsudanpur, (Math),
P.O. Dubha, P.S. Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur.
27. Sailesh Kumar Ram S/O Lakhi Ram R/O Vill. And P.O. Sonabarsa, Via
Dullahpur, P.S. I.A. Buxar, Bihar.
28. Bimla Prasad Singh S/O Atul Kumar Singh R/O Vill. Kharia [Near
Panchayat Bhawan], P.O. Kharia, Via Bariarpur, Munger.
29. Sunita Kumari C/O Rajesh Kumar, R/O Vill. Mobarakpur, P.O. Sanda,
P.S. Islampurm, Nalanda.
30. Rita Kumari Null C/O Subash Chandra Mourya, R/O Vill. Amadhi, P.O.
Saitha, P.S. Sonhan, Distt. Kaimur.
31. Rata Kumar C/O Vijay Prasad, R/O Vill. Barau, P.O. Khanjhapur, P.S.
Mofasil, Distt. Gaya.
32. Manita Kumari C/O Dharmendra Kumar, R/O Vill. And P.O. Aungari,
P.S. Aungari, Distt. Nalanda.
33. Priyanka Kumari C/O Arun Kumari, R/O Vill. Madanpur, P.O.
Madanpur, P.S. Ekangar Saar, Nalanda.
34. Abhishek Kumar S/O Mithilesh Sharma R/O Vill. Mumedan Tola, P.O.
Sitanbad, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, Saharsa.
35. Dinesh Chaudhary S/O Ram Pravesh Chaudhary R/O Vill. Daulta Bad,
P.O. Panditganj, P.S. Kadirganj, Patna.
36. Chandan Kumar S/O Dhiraj Ram R/O Vill. Kashimpurl, P.O. Gorgama,
P.S. Nayaganw, Begusarai.
37. Sabita Kumari C/O Vishwanath Singh R/O Vill. Shiuri, P.O. Sharaw,
P.S. Rasulpur, Chapra.
38. Anjana Bharti Null C/O Shiv Shankar Kuar, R/O Vill. Kaithiyan, P.O.
Khagaul, P.S. Shahpur, Distt.-Patna.
39. Aratee Kumari W/O Arun Arun Kumar Paswan R/O Vill. And P.O.
Bariyarpur, P.S. Sakara, Muzaffarpur.
40. Anima Kumari W/O Sanjay Singh R/O Vill. Bhuapur + P.O.-Kara, P.S.
Jamhor, Aurangabad.
41. Kavita Kumari C/O Bacha Singh, R/O Vill. And P.O.-Masurhi, Via
Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
42. Surya Deo Prakash S/O Ram Prakash R/O Vill. Narayanpur, P.O.
Kalyanpur, P.S.-Bihiya, Bhojpur, Ara.
43. Rajeev Kumar S/O Rash Narayan Mahto R/O Vill. Sakaddi, P.O.-
Sakaddi, P.S.-Jalalpur, Chapra.
44. Sunita Kumari S/O Kishor Kumar R/O Vill. Dhanmapur, Ghosi, P.O.
Bandhuganj, Jehanabad.
45. Pramod Paswan S/O Rambalak Paswan R/O Vill. Patori, P.O. Potory,
Via Anadpur, Darbhanga.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
8/69
46. Rakesh Kumar Ram S/O Lalan Ram R/O Vill. Tikari, P.O. Pratap Pur,
Husainganj, Siwan.
47. Santosh Kumar Chaudhary Santosh Kumar Chaudhary, R/O Vill.
Dulour, P.S.-Jagdishpur, Distt. Bhojpur.
48. Krishna Deo Manjhi S/O Ram Pratap Manjhi R/O Vill. Musehari, P.O.
Kopa, Samhota, Saran.
49. Kiran Kumari C/O Let Gopal Singh, R/O Vill. Barh, Bigha, P.S. Ghosi,
Jehanabad.
50. Msdhu Prasad S/O Gauri Shankar Prasad R/O Vill. And P.O. Telhua,
P.S. Nautan, West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Home (Police), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Deptt. (Personnel
Administrative Reform Deptt.), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16598 of 2011
======================================================
1. Alok Prakash S/O Sri Ram Ram R/O Village- Atimiganj, P.O.-
Mahadeva, Police Station - Nasriganj, District- Rohtas
2. Surendra Paswan S/O Shivmurt Paswan R/O Village- Sonbarsa, P.O.-
Khajura, Police Station Belaon, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
3. Amit Kumar Rajak S/O Brinda Rajak R/O Village And P.O.- Nawada,
Police Station - Sahar, District- Bhojpur
4. Raju Kumar S/O Ramlal Bharti R/O Village- Itimha, P.O.-Karma, Police
Station - Nasriganj, District- Rohtas
5. Jitendra Kumar Pasawan S/O Vijay Prasad R/O Village - Lohri, P.O.-
Ayar, Police Station - Agiaon Bazar Via Dalipur, District- Bhojpur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary General Administrative Department (Personnel
Administrative Reforms Department), Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna, Through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16367 of 2011
======================================================
1. Rekha Kumari W/O Sri Rajeev Prasad @ Raju Kumar R/O Village -
Berath, P.S. - Chauree, Distt. - Bhojpur, Ara.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
9/69
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Though The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, General Adiminstration Department, Personal
Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The General Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar Patna Through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Constable, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19376 of 2012
======================================================
1. Sunil Sah S/O Ram Dayal Sah R/O Vill-Gangpaliya, P.O.-Belaw, P.S.-
Darauli, Distt-Siwan, Roll No.76020214, Category St, Pet On 04.10.2010
2. Savita Kumari D/O Chandeshwar Prasad R/O Tikabigha, P.O.-
Narayanpur, P.S.-Telhara, Distt-City-Nalanda
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home(Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel
Administrative Reform Department) Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar , Patna , Through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22799 of 2011
======================================================
1. Punam Saxena D/O Kapildeo Prasad Police Station- Biharsharif,
District- Nalanda.
2. Babita Kumari D/O Ajay Paswan Resident Of Village/Mohalla- Kosuk,
Police Station- Dipnagar, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department Personnel
Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
10/69
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.412 of 2012
======================================================
1. Pradeep Kumar Bharti Son Of Umesh Paswan Resident Of Village-
Chakand Bazar, P.O.-Chakand Bazar, P.S.-Chandauti, District-Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Govt. Of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department Of
Personnel Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14426 of 2011
======================================================
1. Prakash Kumar Badal, R.No. 61200039, Cat-Gen S/O Sri Amresh Kumar
Singh At + P.O. Laranpur, P.S. Islampur, Distt.-Nalanda.
2. Lalbiahri Kumar, Cat-Ebc, R.No. 60330342 S/O Balmiki Ram Vill.-
Molanabigha, P.O. Onda, P.S. Sara, Distt.-Nalanda.
3. Mahesh Paswan S/O Late Chhotan Paswan Vill.-Imadpur, P.O. Baraila,
P.S. Bajirganj, Distt.-Gaya.
4. Arvind Kumar, R.No. 62060587, Cat-Sc S/O Mukhlal Paswan Vill.-
Dowarika, P.O. Utali Bara, P.S. Bajirganj, Distt.-Gaya.
5. Lalbahadur Shastri, R.No.6115-14, Cat Bc-2 S/O Late Anandi Prasad
Vill.-Mandachh, P.O. Sohsarai, P.S. Nursarai, Distt.-Nalanda.
6. Alok Kumar, R.No. 61170376, Cat-Bc-2 S/O Uday Prasad Vill.-Sherpur,
P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Asthawan, Distt.-Nalanda.
7. Sanotsh Kumar, R.No. 61090593, Cat-Sc S/O Brikesh Prasad Paswan At-
Bardaha, P.O.-Khodaganj, P.S. Khodaganj, Distt.-Nalanda.
8. Arvind Kumar, Roll 6201189 S/O Sri Ram Swarup Das R/O Vill.-Jamari
Ashram, P.O. Arodram, P.S. Cherki, Distt.-Gaya.
9. Pradip Kumar, R.No. 8302044, Cat-Ebc S/O Sri Suvelal Singh R/O Vill.-
Dudhari, P.O. Motipur, P.S. Karjhain, Distt. Supaul.
10. Sharmila Kumari, R.No. 62260326 D/O Ishwari Pradad Yadav R/O
Vill.-Kharkhura Valuai Gaya, P.O. R.S. Gaya, P.S. Delha Gaya, Distt.-
Gaya.
11. Amit Kumar Pandit, R.No. 89050255 S/O Suresh Pandit R/O Vill.-
Dharahara, P.O. Dharahara, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.-Bhagalpur.
12. Rajiv Kumar, R.No. 76030224 S/O Kanhaiya Harijan Das R/O Vill.-
English, P.S. Mairwa, Distt.-Siwan.
13. Binod Kumar, R.No. 83040414, Cat-Bc-2 S/O Sri Kameshwar Yadav
R/O Vill.-Manshapur, P.O. + P.S. Karjain Bagh, Distt.-Supaul.
14. Md. Kurban Alam, R.No. 69190669, Bc-1 S/O Md. Jalil Shekh R/O
Vill.-Rasulpur, P.O. Samardiha, P.S. Sasaram, Distt.-Rohtas.
15. Pradeep Kumar, R.No. 81010313 S/O Sri Kari Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.
+ P.O. Gadhiya, Via-Saharsa Kacheri, Distt.-Saharsa.
16. Prakash Kumar Badal & Orsvirendra Kumar, Roll No. 62200151 S/O
Sri Ratan Ram R/O Vill.-Mahadevpur, P.O. + P.S. Paraiya, Distt.-Gaya.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
11/69
17. Mukesh Kumar Verma, R. No. 66300269 S/O Sri Baidya Nath Mahto
R/O Vill.-Tenua, P.O. Dhampur, P.S. Ara Mufassil, Distt.-Bhojpur.
18. Vijay Shankar Yadav, R.No. 69010760 S/O Sri Rajgrihi Singh R/O Vill.
+ P.O. + P.S. Mu-Urda Chenari, Distt.-Rohtas.
19. Manoj Kumar Pandit, R.No. 83060129 S/O Sri Nageshwar Pandit R/O
Vill.-Manic Chand Chakla, P.O. + P.S. Raghopur, Distt.-Supaul.
20. Golden Kumar, R.No. 67180793 S/O Ashok Thakur R/O Vill.-Ahirouli,
P.O. Ahirouli, P.S. Industrial Area Buxar, Distt.-Buxar.
21. Raj Kishore Pal, R.No. 66240868 S/O Shiv Shankar Prasad R/O Vill.-
Maujampur, P.O. Mahulighat, P.S. Krishangarg, Distt.-Bhojpur (Arah).
22. Surendra Kumar, R.No. 65040065 S/O Sri Nanhaku Chaudhari Vill.-
Nad, P.O. G.B/Kendua, P.S. Sirdala, Distt.-Nawada.
23. Nirbhay Kumar, R.No. 60050118 S/O Ramdahin Singh Vill. + P.O.
Nargada, P.S. Shahpur, Distt.-Patna.
24. Ramashish Yadav, R.No. 64010067 S/O Sriu Ram Pravesh Yadav Vill.-
Nirmal Bigha, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.-Aurangabad.
25. Yaswant Kumar Das, R.No. 71090497 S/O Sri Vishunupat Ram Vill. +
P.O. Bitandipur, P.S. Jandaha, Distt.-Vaishali.
26. Randhir Kumar Singh, Roll No. 60750105, Bc-2 S/O Sri Binod Kumar
Vill.-Dilawarpur, P.O. + P.S. Bihta, Distt.-Patna.
27. Sanjeet Kumar, R.No. 60510127, Bc-1 S/O Ram Prit Pandit Mahavir
Nagar Colony, P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt.-Patna.
28. Mahendra Aditya, R.No. 60180232, Bc-1 S/O Ram Prit Pandit Mahavir
Nagar Colony, P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt.-Patna.
29. Navin Kumar Paswan, R.No. 78130089 S/O Ram Sakal Paswan Vill.-
Sasarma, P.O. Bhataura, P.S. Bisfi, Via-Pindaruch, Distt.-Madhubani.
30. Raj Kumar, R. No. 66180224, Cat-Bc-2 S/O Bhagwan Rai Vill. + P.O.
Kulhariya, P.S. Koilwar, Distt.-Bhojpur.
31. Chandan Kumar, Cat-Obc-Ii, R.No. 81100244 S/O Balbir Yadav Vill.-
Saptiyahi, P.O. Sisai, P.S. + Distt.-Saharsa.
32. Sanjeev Kumar Pandit, R.No. 86010387, Cat-Ebc-I S/O Ramawtar
Vill.-Nayasij Kewala, P.O. Dilarpur, P.S. Manihari, Distt.-Katihar.
33. Sunil Singh, R. No. 69090331, Cat-Obc-Ii S/O Shri Suresh Singh Vill.-
Kalyanipur, P.O. Parbatpur, P.S. Chainpur, Distt.-Kaimur Bhabhua.
34. Papu Kumar, R. No. 68090246, Cat-Bc Ii S/O Shri Ram Bachan Singh
Vill.-Chaknama, P.O. Indrapuri, P.S. Indrapuri, Distt.-Rohtas.
35. Sanjeev Kumar Paswan, R. No. 69040447, Cat-Sc S/O Late Hridya
Paswan Vill.-Urda, P.O. Chenari, P.S. Chenari, Distt.-Rohtas.
36. Manish Kumar, R. No. 65030274, Cat-Ebc S/O Krishnandan Bhagat At-
Dhanpur, P.O. Bhatta, P.S. Kashichek, Distt.-Nawada.
37. Shivram Kumar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R. No. 80080237 S/O Sri
Ram Binod Singh R/O Vill.-Chaper, P.S. Mahiddin Nagar, Distt.-
Samastipur.
38. Bandana Kumari, Aged About 23 Years, R. No. 95020684 D/O Sri Ram
Kumar Singh R/O Vill.-Nayagaon, P.S. Parwatta, Distt.-Khargia.
39. Pankaj Kumar, R.No. 94010705, Pet Test Date-1/10/2020, Cat-Bc-Ii
S/O Prabhu Prasad At-Barahara, P.O. Bari Malia, P.S. Gogri, Distt.-
Khagaria, Pin Code-851203.
40. Nirma Kumari, R.No. 87220249, Pet Test Date-24/09/2010, Cat-
General W/O Raman Kumar At-Ramgarh, P.O. Kharik Bazar, Distt.-
Bhagalpur (Bihar), Pin Code-853202.
41. Ruby Kumari W/O Narayan Kumar Vill.-Khatalpura, P.S. Sare, Distt.-
Nalanda.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
12/69
42. Binda Kumar Nirala, R.No. 62360076, Category-Bc-Ii S/O Shri
Chandradeo Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.-Shiri Bigha, P.O. Telari, P.S. Nimchak
Bathani, Distt.-Gaya (Bihar), Pin Code-821122m.
43. Roma Kumari D/O Gopalji Upadhyay R/O Vill. Gulamichak, P.O.
Anadpur Camp, P.S. Bihta Distt. Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna
Through Its Secretary.
3. The Chairman Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary Of The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment),
Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21167 of 2011
======================================================
1. Diwakar Kumar Son Of Shri Rang Lal Paswan Resident Of Village And
P.O.-Kajhoin, P.S. Bikramganj, District-Rohtas.
2. Rameshwar Kumar Choudhary Son Of Shri Bhagwan Choudhary
Resident Of Village And Post Office-Ghosiakala, P.S. Bikramganj, Dist.-
Rohtas.
3. Dharmavir Kumar Patel Son Of Shri Ramashray Choudhary Resident Of
Village-Darekha, P.O.-Thukrai, Parasia, P.S. Rajpur, District-Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police) Govt. Of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, (Personnel
And Administrative Reforms Department), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman, Central Selection Board Of Constable Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15126 of 2011
======================================================
1. Mithilesh Kumar S/O Devnarayan Singh R/O Vill.-Manjia, P.O.
Bakshama, P.S. Gouraul, Distt. Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, The Deptt. Of Home, Old
Secretariat, Govt. Of Bihar (Patna). Null Null
2. The Chairman, Kendriya Chayan Parishad (Central Selection Council),
Bank Harding Road, Patna-1. Null Null
3. The Secretary, Kendriya Chayan Parishad (Central Selection Council),
Bank Harding Road, Patna-1.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
13/69
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19664 of 2011
======================================================
1. Sudhir Paswan S/O Banarsi Paswan Resident Of Village-Nakuch, P.O.-
Mainagram, P.S.-Mahishi, Distt.-Saharsa, Roll No.-81030235.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel
Administrative Reform Department), Government Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15171 of 2011
======================================================
1. Kumari Anandmayi Yadava D/O Kamal Kishore Yadav R/O Village-
Ushri, P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, State Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police) Governmentof
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel
Administrative Reform Department) Government Of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17086 of 2011
======================================================
1. Mamta Kumari D/O Janardan Yadav R/O Mohalla Balughat Road, P.S.
Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur.
... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police State Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Govt. Of Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel
Administrative Reforms Department), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15343 of 2011
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
14/69
1. Rina Kumari D/O Bhola Manjhi R/O Village - Barkagaon, P.O.-
Barkagaon, P.S.- Bhagwanpur-Hat, District - Siwan
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through The Director General Of Police Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna Secretariat, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary General Administrative Department, Government
Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar through Its
Secretary
5. The Chairman Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna
6. The Secretary Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18901 of 2011
======================================================
1. Naresh Kumar Chaudhari Son Of Sri Ram Pratap Choudhari Resident Of
Village And P.O.-Jandaha, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua).
2. Sandesh Kumar Son Of Sri Ram Awadh Chaudhary Resident Of Village-
Kariram, P.O. And P.S.-Muon, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Home (Police), Government Of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Personnel
Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna Through Its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman Of Central Selection Board Of Constable, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22632 of 2011
======================================================
1. Santoshi Kumari D/O Mr. Raja Ram Prasad Khuguni, P.O. Parsauna
Madan, Via Ramgarhwa, District East Champaran
2. Madhu Pd D/O Mr. Gauri Shankar Pd. Telhua, P.S. Nautan District West
Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna
2. Secretary Home ( Police) Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
3. Director General Of Police Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. Chairman Central Selection Board, Back Of Hardinge Road, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
15/69
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.15487 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari Amrita Gp10
(In CWJC No.13801 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kr Choubey Sc8
(In CWJC No.2822 of 2012)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jaishankar Barnwal Sc1
(In CWJC No.762 of 2012)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha- I
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurandhar Pd. Chy Sc2
(In CWJC No.16871 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Radhika Raman Gp23
(In CWJC No.16937 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gp8
(In CWJC No.20029 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Prasad Sing
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra Sc21
(In CWJC No.13800 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kr. Sc7
(In CWJC No.16598 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nil Kamal
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar Gp3
(In CWJC No.16367 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta Sc16
(In CWJC No.19376 of 2012)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr Uapdhyay Sc20
(In CWJC No.22799 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jha Gp18
(In CWJC No.412 of 2012)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.Ujjwal Sc25
(In CWJC No.14426 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Onkar Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh Ga7
(In CWJC No.21167 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nil Kamal
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Aag10
(In CWJC No.15126 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha Gp19
(In CWJC No.19664 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parth Sharthi Sc10
(In CWJC No.15171 of 2011)
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
16/69
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi Aag14
(In CWJC No.17086 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gautam Bose Aag8
(In CWJC No.15343 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal Sc24
(In CWJC No.18901 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr No.1 Sc12
(In CWJC No.22632 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saptashwa Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N. Hoda Khan Sc18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH
CAV ORDER
34 12-08-2014Though petitioners of these writ applications fall in different categories, but substantially their grievances are the same. They are all aggrieved by the manner in which the list of successful candidates for appointment of constables was redrawn for Physical Evaluation Test-2 (PET-2) and appointments were made by the respondents in purported compliance of the orders and directions of this Court contained in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case [2011(2) PLJR 405] and as affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. Nos.634 and others of 2011 by order dated 13.07.2011 [2011(3) PLJR 584]. Their stand is that the orders and directions of this Court in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra), for redrawing the list of successful candidates, were very explicit and specific. Still the respondents have again committed mistakes in preparing the final list after redrawing the result, due to which all of them have been illegally left out or ousted from getting selected. Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 17/69 Petitioners have not raised any issue specifically claiming any violation of their constitutional or statutory rights. They have only claimed that, had the judgment and order of this Court in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra) been properly and correctly followed by the respondents, they would have got berth in the final select list in place of their juniors in the panel and less meritorious who have been wrongly included and appointed. Thus, in substance, they allege violation of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. Hence, in view of the stand of the petitioners, this Court is necessarily called upon to recapitulate and identify its specific directions in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra), and as approved by the Division Bench, before allegations of their violation, or otherwise, is considered by this Court.
3. Though it may be a repetition, since all the relevant and necessary facts connected with the matter have already been noticed in the order of Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra) but, for the purposes of easy reference, it may be appropriate to notice them once again in this judgment, in short, leading to this second round before this Court.
4. First round of litigation, as well as this second round, by the aggrieved candidates, has got its roots in Advertisement No.2 of 2009 published in the newspapers on Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 18/69 11.12.2009, by which applications were invited for appointment of constables against 10110 vacancies in various units of Bihar Police Service. These total 10110 vacancies were divided into two, by earmarking 50% vacancy for being filled up from eligible Home Guards (HG), which came to 5052, and the remaining 50% vacancies from open market, which came to 5058, loosely termed as Non-Home Guard (N-HG) category. Advertisement itself contained details of bifurcation of the vacancies district-wise, reservation category-wise and different establishment/unit-wise, etc. In this selection process, provisions of Act 3 of 1992, with its amendments, providing for reservation in favour of different categories, and Memo No.10258 dated 05.08.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, prescribing for minimum percentage of qualifying marks, was also made applicable. Selection had to be made and final merit list had to be prepared by the Central Selection Board (for short „the Board‟) constituted by the Director General of Police in terms of the amendments in Bihar Police Manual, made by a notification contained in memo no. 6843 dated 11.08.2008, and had to be held in two stages, namely, (i) a written comparative merit test and thereafter (ii) physical evaluation test of the candidates called on the basis of their marks in the written test. Written Test prescribed was of objective type, with 100 questions having 3 marks for each Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 19/69 correct answer and 1 negative mark for each wrong answer.
5. In response to the advertisement applications were received and approximately 3.65 lakh candidates were allowed to sit in the written test at different centres all over the State. Unfortunately, out of said 3.65 lakhs, only 19,616 candidates could secure minimum percentage in the written examination to qualify for Physical Evaluation Test. Out of this 19,616, 19,227 were of Non-Home Guard category whereas only 389 were of Home Guard category. In line with the amendment in the Police Manual, the advertisement laid down that, on the basis of marks secured in the written test, candidates in the ratio of 1:5 for each reservation category would be called for Physical Evaluation Test. Again on the lines of the said amendment, it was made clear that no marks would be allotted in Physical Evaluation Test but it was also made clear that no relaxation would be allowed in physical evaluation standards. Since only 19616 candidates had secured qualifying marks in the written test, which was much less than 5 times of the advertised vacancies, all of them were called for Physical Evaluation Test. The Physical Evaluation Test (PET-1) was held, in which unfortunately only 5676 candidates could clear. Out of this 5676, 5545 were of Non-Home Guard (N-HG) category and only 131 were of Home Guard (HG) category. Thus, out of 19227 Non-Home Guard candidates, who Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 20/69 cleared the written test, 5545 cleared the Physical Evaluation Test also against available 5058 vacancies for them, whereas out of 389 Home Guard candidates, who cleared written test, only 131 could clear Physical Evaluation Test also against available 5052 vacancies. In the circumstances, on account of non-availability of Home Guard candidates in such a large number, the Board sought for clarifications/guidelines from the Government through memo dated 28.7.2010. The Home (Police) Department considered the matter and, through memo no. 699 dated 04.08.2010, clarified that the said executive instructions of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept. dated 05.08.1991, prescribing for minimum qualifying marks for written competitive examinations for direct recruitment, was not applicable in the matter of constable appointments in view of the said amendments in the Police Manual which had statutory force and hence directed for relaxing the minimum qualifying marks for the written test and for calling the candidates, both HG as well as N-HG, category-wise, in the ratio of 1:5, and then fill up the remaining vacancies of HG quota from N-HG candidates.
6. Said clarifications/guidelines issued by the Department, issued through the said memo no. 699 dated 04.08.2010, have been noticed in detail and extracted by this Court in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra). After receipt of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 21/69 clarifications/guidelines, Board proceeded with the selection process. But, before proceeding further, by calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5 for second round of physical evaluation test, Board published the result of 2228 candidates of PET-1, which included 131 Home Guards and 2 Gorkhas, out of the 5545, who had cleared PET-1, and asked them to collect their appointment letters, and it „put on hold‟ result of rest 3317 successful candidates. It also „put on hold‟ 85 general category vacancies, although sufficient numbers of candidates were available, on the ground that large number of candidates had same marks in the written test. As per the Board, reason for putting on hold the result of 3317 candidates of PET-1, who all were said to belong to different reserved categories, was that after the receipt of the said clarifications/guidelines from the Home (Police) Department, the category-wise vacancies had to be re-worked out, and, ignoring the qualifying marks, candidates in the ratio of 1:5 had to be called for physical evaluation test from the merit list of written test for filling up of all the remaining vacancies. Hence it visualized that, as a result of this re-working out of the vacancies, 50% vacancy of general category may increase. Hence, applying sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992, 3317 successful candidates of PET-1, who were said to belong to different reserved categories, had to be shifted against newly available general category vacancies by dint Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 22/69 of their merit. Accordingly, ignoring the cut off marks, for the remaining 7882 (10110-2228) vacancies, which included the remaining vacancies of Home Guard quota also, 31552 candidates were called for Physical Evaluation Test (PET-2), out of whom, 24641 were of Non-Home Guard category whereas 6911 were of Home Guard category.
7. After completion of PET-2, only 11187 candidates were found physically fit, including 1859 Home Guard candidates. After completion of this process, Board finally merged all the remaining candidates of both the Physical Evaluation Tests, except 2228, whose result had been finally declared, (3317 of PET-1 + 11187 Non-Home Guard candidates of PET-2 including 1859 Home Guards) and distributed them against different categories of vacancies by applying sub-section (3) of Section 4 of Act 3 of 1992. This resulted into almost all the 3317 successful candidates of PET-1, belonging to different reserved categories getting their berth against general category vacancies of Home Guard quota released for Non-Home Guard candidates in terms of the said clarifications/guidelines of Home (Police) Department, ousting the general category candidates, who had cleared PET-2. This gave rise to the first round of litigation.
8. This Court heard the matter on many dates in which exact re-working of the vacancies and distribution of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 23/69 candidates were explained by the parties. This Court also examined in detail the Notification No. 6843 dated 11.08.2008, by which amendments were introduced in the Bihar Police Manual and Memo No.699 dated 04.08.2010, by which clarifications/guidelines were issued to the Board by the Home (Police) Department. This Court also noticed the admitted position that, on account of this re-working of vacancies after ignoring the qualifying marks, candidates in many categories having secured up to minus sixty (- 60) in the written test had been selected.
9. After noticing the factual aspects of the case, this Court came to the conclusion that ;
(i) in view of sub-paragraph ( ) and ( ) of paragraph 1 of the said clarifications/guidelines, the Board was required to publish entire result of first phase (PET1) for all available vacancies of each of the categories and only left over vacancies (SC-29, ST-52, EBC- 255, BC(W)-139, Gorkha-82) and left over surplus candidates of PET-1 (general/UR- 457, BC-788) were only to be clubbed with the list of second phase (PET-2) and candidates of each category to the ratio of 1:5 were required to be called for the purpose separately, which the Board had failed to do; Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 24/69
(ii) the direction for calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:5, contained in the said clarification/guidelines, was only directory and, so far as general category candidates were concerned, there was substantial compliance of it in PET-1. Hence, the Board was legally obliged to declare the result of all the candidates of all the categories, who had cleared PET-1;
(iii) on facts, and in view of the chart under paragraph 24 of the said order, it was clear that the list prepared of 31552 candidates for their physical evaluation test in the second phase was not on comparative merits;
(iv) since consideration of comparative merits and qualifying marks were given a go-bye in the second round, sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 became inapplicable for the second phase of selection (PET-2);
(v) in terms of last paragraph under clause ( ) of the said notification dated 11.08.2008 (amending the Bihar Police Manual), on account of non-availability of sufficient number of eligible Home Guards, vacancies of Home Guard quota were to be filled up Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 25/69 by Non-Home Guard candidates of same reservation category. Hence, the remaining vacancies of Home Guard quota, which had to be filled up from the candidates of Non-Home Guard category, had to be strictly category-wise and no merging or shifting of candidates from one category to another category was permissible;
(vi) said 85 remaining vacancies of general category could not be left out only because large number of candidates had secured same qualifying marks and the Board was required to apply the principles, such as date of birth, as laid down repeatedly by the Apex Court and this Court, to be applied in case of equal qualifying marks, for appointments against those 85 vacancies. Hence, this Court directed the respondents to publish the result of remaining (3317) candidates, who had cleared PET-1 and recommend their names against remaining vacancies out of 5058 vacancies of Non-Home Guard quota of different categories and fill them up strictly category-wise. Thereafter only, the available vacancies (SC-29, ST- 52, EBC-255, BC(W)-139, Gorkha-82) were to be merged with the remaining vacancies of Home Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 26/69 Guard strictly category-wise and were to be filled up strictly from the candidates of the respective category only. In the circumstances, the Court directed the respondents to re-draw the list of successful candidates for appointment on the left out advertised vacancies (7882) strictly in the manner indicated in the order.
10. The above findings and directions of this Court in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra) were approved by the Division Bench in its order passed in LPAs, as referred to above. Hence, what the Board was required to do, in chronological order, in terms of the directions of this Court in Pinku Kumar Singh‟s case (Supra), was that;
(i) it had to fill up 85 general category vacancies, withheld on account of large number of candidates having secured equal marks by applying the established principles of selection of candidates from amongst those having secured equal marks (eg. date of birth etc.);
(ii) thereafter it was required to publish the result of the remaining 3317 candidates successful in PET-1 category-wise and recommend them for appointment against N-HG vacancies of their respective category; Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 27/69
(iii) after completing the above exercise, the Board would have been left with 29 vacancies of SC category, 52 vacancies of ST category, 255 vacancies of EBC category, 139 vacancies of BC(W) category and 82 vacancies of Gorkha, and would have been left over with 457 candidates of general category and 788 candidates of BC category. This picture would have emerged after completion of entire process of selection of candidates after PET-1;
(iv) these vacancies would have been thereafter added to the vacancies of respective category of Home Guard quota;
(v) after thus adding, the total available vacancies would have been 2217 of general category, 830 (801+29) of SC category, 157 (105+52) of ST category, 1223 (968+255) of EBC category, 278 (139+139) of BC(W) category and 165 (82+83) of Gorkha category;
(vi) then surplus candidate of general category from PET-1 (457) were required to be adjusted against available vacancies (2217) bringing now the available vacancy of general category to 1760 (2217-
457) and all the available vacancies of BC category Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 28/69 (608) should have been filled up from the surplus available candidates of PET-1 (788) leaving out surplus BC category candidates (180). After this exercise, final vacancies available with the Board would have been general- 1760; SC - 830; ST-157; EBC-1223; BC(W)-278 and Gorkha-165.
(vii) now from the category wise result of written test the Board ought to have called five times candidates of each category i.e. General-8800 (1760x5); SC-4150 (830x5); ST-785 (157x5); EBC-6115 (1223x5); BC(W)-1390 (278x5) and Gorkha-825 (165x5) for second Physical Evaluation Test (PET-2) and then should have filled up the said available vacancies strictly from the candidates of each category being declared successful after the Test. This only would have been in strict compliance of the notification no.6843 dated 11.08.2008 and the said clarifications/guidelines issued by the Home (Police) Department through the said memo dated 04.08.2010.
11. It may be pointed out that the Home (Police) Department in its said clarifications/guidelines had accepted that the amendments introduced in the Police Manual by the said Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 29/69 notification dated 11.08.2008 were statutory in nature and was mandatory, irrespective of anything contrary to it in any executive instructions. Thus, the mandate contained in the said notification that „vacancies of Home Guard quota will be filled up by the Non- Home Guard candidates of same reservation category‟ was mandatory for the Board to follow.
12. The petitioners have alleged that the Board completely failed to follow the directions of the Court and has made a mess of the entire procedure which amounted to violation of principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstance this Court felt that it had no option but to go into the details of the selection process and details of fixing of vacancies of different categories and working out the final select list. Hence the Court got the matter listed on 12.02.2014 under the heading „To Be Mentioned‟ and learned counsels for the parties were requested to produce detailed break up of category-wise vacancies, allotment of seats and appointments made. Thereafter the matter was taken up on a couple of dates and finally on 05.05.2014 a third supplementary counter affidavit, with a comprehensive chart with figures, was filed on behalf of Board said to be containing all the details of both phases of selection and appointments. Matter was finally heard on 15.05.2014 and orders were reserved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-201430/69
13. Now coming to the details made available on record, by Advertisement No. 2/2009, 10110 vacancies in the cadre of Bihar Police Service, which comprised of vacancies in the districts and included Rail Police, Military Police establishments, Women Battalion as well. In terms of the amendment in the Police Manual, it was mentioned in the Advertisement that maximum 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up from duly trained and registered Home Guards (HG).
14. It is an admitted position that out of the 10110, respondents had decided to fill up 5052 vacancies by home guards (HG candidates) and the rest 5058 by open competition (N-HG candidates). Hence, as per the Act 3 of 1992, these vacancies of each category had to be divided in the following manner :-
Table-I Category Reservation N-HG - 5058 HG - 5052 General 50% 2529 2526 S.C. 16% 809.28 = 809 808.32 = 808 S.T. 01% 50.58 = 51 50.52 = 51 EBC (MBC) 18% 910.44 = 910 909.36 = 909 BC 12% 606.96 = 607 606.24 = 606 BC W 03% 151.74 = 152 151.56 = 152
15. In the said chart with the third supplementary affidavit of the Board, the first and the second column, meant for quota and vacancy as per percentage, have been left blank.
16. However, the actually allotted vacancies for N- Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 31/69 HG and HG candidates have been divided into sub-categories also. The division is in the following manner :-
Table-II Serial as per Category/ sub-category N-HG - 5058 HG - 5052 chart 1 SC 747 747 2 ST 103 102 3 EBC 909 908 4 BC 568 568 5 Unreserved/Open (All 2180 2179 categories) 6 SC Women 54 54 7 ST Women 4 3 8 EBC Women 60 60 9 BC Women 41 40 10 Unreserved/Open (All 169 169 categories) Women 11 Women belonging to 139 139 Backward Classes (3%) 12 Gurkha 84 83 13 Gurkha Women - -
Total 5058 5052
17. Now, Act 3 of 1992 does not provide for any vertical reservation for any category/sub-category of women separately, except in the case of BC Women, for whom a separate 3% reservation is provided. It also does not provided for vertical reservation for candidates of particular race/region/ethnic group or Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 32/69 the like. Neither in the said amendments to the Police Manual, nor in the said Advertisement, there is any mention of any law or any Government decision providing for any separate vertical reservation for women for other different category or for Gurkhas.
During the arguments also learned senior counsel for the respondents did not make any claim in this respect. Hence the above division of vacancies have necessarily to be clubbed together and rearranged in the following manner :-
Table-III Main Category Categories (serials) N-HG HG clubbed together General 5, 10, 12 2180+169+84=2433 2179+169+83=2431 SC 1, 6 747+54=801 747+54=801 ST 2, 7 103+4=107 102+3=105 EBC 3, 8 909+60=969 908+60=968 BC 4, 9 568+41=609 568+40=608 BCW (3%) 11 139 139
18. As a result, the picture which emerges in respect of reservations of vacancies is as follows:-
Table-IV Category Vacancies allotted as per Vacancies actually allotted reservation percentage N-HG - HG N-HG - HG General 2529 2526 2433 2431 SC 809 808 801 801 ST 51 51 107 105 EBC 910 909 969 968 BC 607 606 609 608 BCW 152 152 139 139 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 33/69
19. Discrepancies in the calculations of vacancies, as per law and as per made by the respondents, are apparent.
20. Now, coming to the written examination, as per the Board, approximately 3.65 lakh candidates appeared in the examination, out of which 19616 only could secure qualifying marks fixed for their category as per the letter no. 10258 dated 05.08.1991 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.
The number of these successful candidates was less than five times of the vacancies, which was 10110. Hence all of them were called for physical test. As per the said Chart, category-wise candidates called for physical test were as follows:-
Table-V Serial as per Category/ sub-category Candidates called for chart Physical Test N-HG HG 1 SC 1909 45 2 ST 120 1 3 EBC 1626 36 4 BC 2024 52 5 Unreserved/Open (All categories) 13286 246 6 SC Women 14 1 7 ST Women 0 0 8 EBC Women 19 0 9 BC Women 80 4 10 Unreserved/Open (All categories) 138 4 Women 11 Women belonging to Backward 0 0 Classes (3%) 12 Gurkha 11 0 13 Gurkha Women - -
Total 19227 389
21. The number of candidates, successful in the Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 34/69 written test and called for physical test, has also to be re-arranged category-wise, in accordance with the re-arrangement of vacancies as above, in terms of the Act 3 of 1992, with the minimum percentage of marks secured by them, as per the said letter dated 05.08.1991, in the following manner:-
Table-VI Main Categories N-HG HG Minimum Category (serials) percentage of clubbed marks secured together as per said letter no.
10258 Dt.
5.8.1991
General 5, 10, 12 13286+138+11=13435 246+4+0=250 40%
SC 1, 6 1909+14=1923 45+1=46 32%
ST 2, 7 120+0=120 1+0=1 32%
EBC 3, 8 1626+19=1645 36+0=36 34%
BC 4, 9 2024+80=2104 52+4=56 36.5%
BCW (3%) 11 0 0 32%
22. It is obvious that, in terms of sub-section 3 of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992, the general category candidates (13435+384) must be including candidates of other categories also who, on merits, may have secured 40% or more marks in the written test. Hence, candidates of BC category (2104+56) must be other than those who may have got berth in the general category on their own merits, and must have secured less than 40% and up to 36.5% marks in the written examination. Similarly, the EBC candidates (1645+36) must have secured less than 40% and up to 34% in the written examination; the SC (1923+59), ST (120+1) Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 35/69 candidates must have secured less than 40% and up to 32% marks.
Obviously, the remaining candidates of their respective categories must have secured lesser marks than the candidates of their respective category, who were declared pass. This is being pointed out, because, even if later on, by memo of the Home Department dated 04.08.2010 the said letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 05.08.1991 was held not applicable in case of appointment of constables in Bihar Police Service, and minimum qualifying marks, prescribed therein for all competitive examination was relaxed and the Board was directed to call candidates in their own category in the ratio of 1:5, the candidates could not jump from one category to another and to general category, as it was held by this Court, and approved by the Division Bench as the applicability of said sub-section 3 of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 in the case ended at this stage.
23. Moreover, the advertisement prescribed age limits also for different categories of candidates, according to which male candidates of general category, as well as of OBC and EBC had to be between 18 to 25 years of age, whereas female candidates of OBC and EBC could be between 18 to 26 years and SC, ST, male or female, could be between 18 to 28 years. HG candidates, across the board, were given relaxation of 5 years uniformly.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-201436/69
24. The vacancies actually allotted by the Board to different categories and category-wise candidates, who cleared the written examination and were called for physical test, as per the said Chart, were as shown in the following table:-
Table-VII Category N-HG HG Vacancy Candidates available Vacancy Candidates allotted allotted available General 2433 13435 2431 250 SC 801 1923 801 46 ST 107 120 105 1 EBC 969 1645 968 36 BC 609 2104 608 56 BCW 139 0 139 0 Total 5058 19227 5052 389
25. By the said amendments in the Police Manual through the notification dated 11.08.2008, strict yardsticks were prescribed for physical test for different category of candidates, which were incorporated in the advertisement also. They were as follows:-
Height:-
(1) For Males - - - - - minimum 165 cms.
(2) For all category of females - - minimum 155 cms.
(3) For Gorkhas of Indian origin - - minimum 160 cms.
(4) For SC/ST males - - - - minimum 162 cms.
Chest (only for males)
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
37/69
(1) For General category, BC and EBC males -
Without inflating - - - 81 cms. (minimum)
After inflating - - - 86 cms. (minimum)
(after inflating a difference of 5 cms. will be essential) (2) For SC/ST males -
Without inflating - - - 79 cms. (minimum) After inflating - - - 84 cms. (minimum) (after inflating a difference of 5 cms. will be essential) (3) For Gorkhas of Indian origin only for BMP-1 (Gorkha Battalion) Without inflating - - - - 79 cms. (minimum) After inflating - - - 84 cms. (minimum) (after inflating a difference of 5 cms. will be essential) Physical fitness -
(1) Running -
For males -
Time limit for 1 mile run - 6 minutes.
( candidates taking longer time shall be disqualified) For females -
Time limit for 1 km run - 6 minutes.
(candidates taking longer time shall be disqualified) (2) High jump -
For males - - - minimum 4 (four) feet Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 38/69 For females- - - minimum 3 (three) feet (3) Long jump - For males - - minimum 12 (twelve) feet For females- - minimum 9 (nine) feet (4) Shot-put throw - For males - of 16 pounds - - minimum throw 16 (sixteen) feet For females - of 12 pounds - minimum throw 10 (ten) feet.
26. Physical test (PET-1) was held. As per the said chart, candidates of different category, who cleared the physical test were as follows:-
Table-VIII Serial as per Category/ sub-category N-HG HG chart 1 SC 940 22 2 ST 68 0 3 EBC 1038 33 4 BC 2282 93 5 Unreserved/Open 961 34 (All categories) 6 SC Women 5 0 7 ST Women 0 0 8 EBC Women 13 2 9 BC Women 81 2 10 Unreserved/Open (All 40 0 categories) Women 11 Women belonging to 0 0 Backward Classes (3%) 12 Gurkha 2 0 13 Gurkha Women - -
Total 5430 186 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 39/69
27. In the 7th and in one subsequent column of the Chart annexed with the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board on 01.04.2014, as well as in the 6th and some subsequent columns of revised chart annexed with the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit filed on 05.05.2014, it has been mentioned in brackets that "Unreserved category is determined by their Original category". Though this expression has not been explained in any of the affidavits of the Board, but this Court assumes that it may mean that, during the physical test, the candidates may have been subjected to the tests as prescribed for their original category, irrespective of the fact that, on account of their marks in the written test, they may have got berth in the general category. This means that a SC/ST candidate may have been put amongst 13435 successful general category candidates due to the marks secured by him in written test, but in the physical test, yardstick for a SC/ST candidate was applied to him and not that for general category and other category candidates. Thus to clear the physical test, he was required to have a height of 162 cms, as against 165 cms required for males of other categories and chest measurement 79/84 cms, and not 81/86 cms. But, this has to be noticed that this different yardstick in the physical test was only for males of SC/ST category, besides gorkhas and females, and not Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 40/69 for males of any other category.
28. However, after PET-1, following picture emerges about the surplus vacancies still available to be filled up or candidates of different categories available for appointment on available vacancies of HG category:-
Table-IX N-HG
Serial as Category/ sub- Vacancies Candidates Candidates Surplus Surplus
per chart category as per cleared written who cleared vacancy candidate
chart test and called PET-1
for PET-1
1 SC 747 1909 940 193
2 ST 103 120 68 35
3 EBC 909 1626 1038 129
4 BC 568 2024 2282 1714
5 Unreserved/ 2180 13286 961 1219
Open (All
categories)
6 SC Women 54 14 5 49
7 ST Women 4 0 0 4
8 EBC Women 60 19 13 47
9 BC Women 41 80 81 40
10 Unreserved/ 169 138 40 129
Open (All
categories)
Women
11 Women 139 0 0 139
belonging to
Backward
Classes (3%)
12 Gurkha 84 11 2 82
13 Gurkha - - - -
Women
Total 5058 19227 5430
29. It may be notice that, as per the figures in the said Chart, in the category of BC males and BC females the number of candidates shown as to have cleared the PET-1 are Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 41/69 shown to be more than the number of candidates who are shown to have been called for physical test. There is no explanation to it by the Board in the supplementary counter affidavits with which the charts have been annexed.
30. In respect of the Home Guard candidates, the picture emerges thus:-
Table-X HG
Serial Category/ sub- Vacancies Candidates Candidates Surplus Surplus
as per category as per chart called for who cleared vacancy candidate
chart PET-1 PET-1
1 SC 747 45 22 725
2 ST 102 1 0 102
3 EBC 908 36 33 875
4 BC 568 52 93 475
5 Unreserved/ 2179 246 34 2145
Open (All
categories)
6 SC Women 54 1 0 54
7 ST Women 3 0 0 3
8 EBC Women 60 0 2 58
9 BC Women 40 4 2 38
10 Unreserved/ 169 4 0 169
Open (All
categories)
Women
11 Women 139 0 0 139
belonging to
Backward
Classes (3%)
12 Gurkha 83 0 0 83
13 Gurkha Women - - - -
Total 5052 389 186 4866
31. The above table makes it clear that it was actually the vacancies of Home Guard quota that worried the Board. In the circumstances, the Board sought for some guidelines Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 42/69 from the Department through memo no. 695/P-2 dated 28.07.2010, which, through its letter contained in memo no. 699 04.08.2010, sent its clarification. The clarifications were in the following terms and are reproduced in this order again for easy reference:-
"
-
-----
, Statutory Rule , , Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 43/69 "
32. After the above said letter was received in the Board, it issued appointment letters. As per the said Chart, the number of candidates, who cleared physical test and number of candidates, who were issued appointment letters, and the surplus candidates/vacancies remaining available, were as follows:-
Table-XI N-HG
1 2 3 4 5 6
Serial as Category/ sub- Vacancy Candidates Distribution in Candidates
per chart category allotted who cleared the first round who were
PET-1 (unreserved appointed in
category is the first round
determined by
their original
category)
1 SC 747 940 185 0
2 ST 103 68 12 0
3 EBC 909 1038 347 0
4 BC 568 2282 988 0
5 Unreserved/ 2180 961 530 2062
Open (All
categories)
6 SC Women 54 5 0 0
7 ST Women 4 0 0 0
8 EBC Women 60 13 4 0
9 BC Women 41 81 16 0
10 Unreserved/ 169 40 4 24
Open (All
categories)
Women
11 Women 139 0 0 0
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
44/69
belonging to
Backward
Classes (3%)
12 Gurkha 84 2 2 2
13 Gurkha Women - - - -
Total 5058 5430 2088 2088
33. Column 5 in the above table is a reproduction of a column in the said Chart. This Court has completely failed to appreciate the heading and figures in the said Chart. If 940 SC candidates had cleared physical test against 747 vacancies, why only 185 were shown in this column ? What happened to the rest 755 (940-185) ? They obviously could not travel to the general category as apparently they must have secured less than 40% marks in the written test. Moreover, for SC category candidates yardstick for height and chest was also lower. Then were did the said 755 go and why ? Similarly if 68 ST candidates had cleared physical test against 103 vacancies, why only 12 where shown in the said column; if 1038 EBC candidates had cleared the physical test against 909 vacancies, why only 347 were shown there; if 961 candidates of open category had cleared the physical test against 2180 vacancies, why only 530 were shown; if 5 candidates of SC Women category had cleared physical test against 54 vacancies, why none was shown in this column; if 13 EBC Women had cleared physical test against 60 vacancies, why only 4 were shown here; if 81 BC Women had cleared physical test against 41 vacancies, why only 16 were shown and if 40 women of open Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 45/69 category had cleared physical test against 169 vacancies, why only 4 were shown in the column ? In this, at this stage, the Board left out 755 SC, 56 ST, 691 EBC, 1294 BC, 431 Open, 9 EBC Women, 65 BC Women and 36 Women Open from consideration, though sufficient vacancies were available, except in BC category in which for 568 vacancies 988 had cleared the physical test. Besides, figures in column 5 above, which is a reproduction of figures from the said Chart, vis-à-vis the figures in column 6 above makes it clear that, while issuing appointment letters, candidates of SC, ST, EBC and BC were also issued appointment letters against general category vacancies and women candidates of EBC and BC categories were issued appointment letters against vacancies for general category women.
In respect of HG category the picture emerges as under:-
Table-XII HG
1 2 3 4 5 6
Serial Category/ sub- Vacancy Candidates Distribution in the Candidates
as per category allotted who cleared first round who were
chart PET-1 (unreserved appointed in
category is the first round
determined by their
original category)
1 SC 747 22 9 0
2 ST 102 0 0 0
3 EBC 908 33 19 0
4 BC 568 93 65 0
5 Unreserved/ 2179 34 34 127
Open (All
categories)
6 SC Women 54 0 0 0
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
46/69
7 ST Women 3 0 0 0
8 EBC Women 60 2 2 0
9 BC Women 40 2 2 0
10 Unreserved/ 169 0 0 4
Open (All
categories)
Women
11 Women 139 0 0 0
belonging to
Backward
Classes (3%)
12 Gurkha 83 0 0 0
13 Gurkha Women - - -
Total 5052 186 131 131
34. These figures in respect of HG category need not be discussed separately. The discussion in respect of N-HG category, as above, is applicable in respect of these figures in respect of HG category also. It will be only a repetition to say that, like in N-HG category, in HG category also, candidates of all other categories were issued appointment letters against vacancies for general category.
35. This all gave rise to the first round of litigation. As stated above, in the first round before this Court, Board took a stand that, in view of the clarification letter of the government dated 04.08.2010, the vacancies were required to be worked out again, and therefore it had put the successful candidates of other categories „on hold‟, while declaring result of 2228, and called them to collect appointment letters. As per the said Chart, produced by the Board with the 3rd supplementary counter Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 47/69 affidavit, this figure comes to 2219 (2088 N-HG + 131 HG). The Board also took a stand that it had „put on hold‟ 85 general category vacancies, though sufficient number of candidates were available, as large number of candidates had same marks in written test. It took a stand that the 3317 remaining successful candidates of PET-1 had to be shifted against newly available general category vacancies on consideration of their merit by application of sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992.
36. It may be pointed out that in the said first round of litigation none of parties placed before this Court that in the said 2228 candidates, whose results were declared, candidates of other categories were also there and had already been shifted to general category, which had apparently no justification, as physical test was only qualifying and had no bearing on the comparative merit list. This Court found that „putting on hold‟ the 3317 successful candidates of PET-1 was, in fact, contrary to the clarifications issued by the government through the said letter dated 4.8.2010. On the other hand, as per the said letter, the Board was required to declare the entire result of PET-1 and then only to proceed for filling up the remaining vacancies of both N-HG and HG by separately calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5, ignoring the cut- off marks in the written test. This Court directed accordingly. These findings and directions were approved by the Division Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 48/69 Bench.
37. After the judgment of Division Bench, Board claims that it implemented the orders of this Court by declaring the results of the rest of the candidates of the PET-1 and issued appointment letters. As per the figures in the said Chart, candidates and vacancies, still available after appointments made before the judgment and appointed made thereafter, were as follows:-
Table-XIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 Serial Category/ Candidates Vacancies available Appointments Appointments as per sub-category available COUNTING Before after judgment chart CANDIDATES IN judgment N-HG HG THEIR N-HG HG N-HG HG RESPECTIVE CATEGORY N-HG HG 1 SC 940-185 22-9 747-185 747-9 0 0 618 =755 =13 =562 =738 13 2 ST 68-12 0 103-12 102-0 0 0 41 0 =56 =91 =102 3 EBC 1038-347 33-19 909-347 908-19 0 0 488 14 =691 =14 =562 =889 4 BC 2282-988 93-65 568-988 568-65 0 0 624 28 =1294 =28 =[- 420] =503 5 Unreserved/ 961-530 34-34 2180-530 2179- 2062 127 1515 0 Open-All =431 =0 34 categories =1650 =2145 6 SC Women 5-0 0 54-0 54-0 0 0 0 0 =5 =54 =54 7 ST Women 0 0 4-0 3-0 0 0 0 0 =4 =0 8 EBC 13-4 2-2 60-4 60-2 0 0 1 0 Women =9 =0 =56 =58 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 49/69 9 BC Women 81-16 2-2 41-16 40-2 0 0 25 0 =65 =0 =25 =38 10 Unreserved/ 40-4 0 169-4 169-0 24 4 30 0 Open (All =36 =165 =169 categories) Women 11 Women 0 0 139-0 139-0 0 0 0 0 belonging =139 =139 to Backward Classes -3% 12 Gurkha 2-2 0 84-2 83-0 2 0 0 0 =0 =82 =83 13 Gurkha - - - - - - - -
Women Total 3342 55
38. Figures in column 3 above contain the numbers in respect of candidates who had cleared the physical test (PET-1) and the „Distribution in the first round‟. Similarly figures in column 4 above contain the number of vacancies allotted to different categories and „Distribution in the first round‟ after the result of PET-1.
39. This may be pointed out again that, for no apparent reasons or justification, the candidates of other categories included in „Distribution in the first round‟ were adjusted against unreserved/open category vacancies. The result was that in the physical test though 961 candidates of unreserved category of N- HG quota had cleared physical test, out of which only 530 were „Distributed in the first round‟, but 2062 were appointed against vacancies allotted to this category, which included 185 SC, 12 ST, Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 50/69 347 EBC, 988 BC. Without referring to the specific figures, it will suffice to point out that from the Tables-XI & XII above the same picture emerges in respect of quota for women of unreserved category and HG category also. This may also be pointed out that, up to this stage, the Board was proceeding in the matter on the basis of result in the written test and merit list prepared in the light of sub-section (3) of section 4 of Act 3 of 1992 and Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Memo No. 10258 dated 05.08.1991.
40. As notice above, Home (Police) Department, in response to the query of Board through its memo no. 695/P-2 dated 28.07.2010, issued certain clarifications, through its memo no. 699 dated 04.08.2010, which have been reproduced herein above also. Through the said memo it was clarified that it was not proper to apply the said executive instructions of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in the matter of calling candidates for physical test, being done in terms of Notification No. 6843 dated 11.08.2008 of the Home (Police) Department, having effect of a statutory rule, since issued in terms of section 55 read with section 94 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007. A bare reading of the extract from the said memo dated 04.08.2010, as above, makes it clear that the result of first phase of physical test had to be declared and, for the second phase, the principle of 1:5 ratio had Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 51/69 to be applied in supersession of said memo dated 05.08.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Department. It is significant to note that in the said memo dated 04.08.2010 of the Home (Police) Department it had also been made clear that this principle of 1:5 ratio for calling candidates for physical test had to be applied for 50% quota of vacancies for home guards also. It was again reiterated therein that 50% of the vacancies had to go to home guards and only in case of non-availability of home guard candidates, the left out vacancies had to be filled up by non-home guard candidates. This necessarily required that at this stage also the remaining vacancies of home guard quota had to be identified separately and home guards of each category, in the ratio of 1:5, had to be called for second round of physical test first and, only in case of sufficient number of home guards not clearing the physical test in spite of being called in the that ratio, the resultant vacancies had to opened for non-home guards candidates. Hence, for all practical purposes, a third round of physical test was also required to be held, if the circumstances called for it, or a waiting list of non-home guard candidates of each category separately had to prepared and kept in reserve.
41. Coming back to calculations in respect of available candidates/vacancies, as on the date of judgment of the Division Bench and appointments made thereafter, from the Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 52/69 following table the picture may become clear:-
Table-XIV N-HG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Serial Category/ sub- Candidates Vacancies Candidates Vacancies Appointme- Appoint-
as per category available available available as available as nts made in ments
chart as as per per per the first made
per chart chart calculation calculation round after DB
judgment
1 SC 755 747 755 562 0 618
2 ST 56 103 56 91 0 41
3 EBC 691 909 691 562 0 488
4 BC 1394 568 1294 [ -420 ] 0 624
5 Unreserved 431 118 431 1650 2062 1515
/Open-All
categories
6 SC 5 54 5 54 0 0
Women
7 ST Women 0 4 0 4 0 0
8 EBC 9 60 9 56 0 1
Women
9 BC 65 41 65 25 0 25
Women
10 Unreserved 36 145 36 165 24 30
/Open (All
categories)
Women
11 Women - 139 0 139 0 0
belonging
to
Backward
Classes -
3%
12 Gurkha - 82 - 82 2 0
13 Gurkha - - - - 0
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
53/69
Women
Total
42. Separate similar figures are necessary to be worked out for the home guard quota also, since, as per the said clarifications/directions of the Home (Police) Department also, the vacancies earmarked/allotted to home guard category had to be dealt with and attempted to be filled up from the home guards itself at the first instance. The table containing figures in respect of home guards is as follows:-
Table-XV HG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Serial Category/ Candidates Vacancies Candidates Vacancies Appoint- Appoint
as per sub- available as available available as available ments ments
chart category per chart as per per as per made in made
chart calculation calculation the first after round DB judgment 1 SC 13 747 13 747 0 13 2 ST 0 102 0 102 0 0 3 EBC 14 908 14 889 0 14 4 BC 28 568 28 503 0 28 5 Unreserved 0 2052 0 2145 127 0 /Open-All categories 6 SC 0 54 0 54 0 0 Women 7 ST 0 3 0 0 0 0 Women 8 EBC 0 60 0 58 0 0 Women 9 BC 0 40 0 38 0 0 Women 10 Unreserved 0 165 0 169 4 0 /Open (All categories) Women 11 Women - 139 0 139 0 0 belonging to Backward Classes -3% 12 Gurkha - 83 0 83 0 0 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 54/69 13 Gurkha - - - - -
Women Total
43. Now it will be appropriate to take up the figures in respect of N-HG quota, as appearing above, category- wise. In respect of first category, SC, it is apparent that total vacancy allotted by the Board to SC (male) was 747 and 54 to SC (Women), total of which comes to 801. As shown in Table-IV above, as per the calculation of percentage, this should have been
809. However, against these 747 vacancies, 1909 candidates were called for physical test. Out of these 1909 candidates, 940 passed the physical test (see Table-IX). Since number of male candidates who passed the physical test in this category was more than the vacancy allotted, in normal course all the 747 vacancies should have been filled up by the successful candidates, leaving out 193 (940-747) candidates of this category to be appointed against available vacancies of HG quota. But this was not done and, out of the said 940, only 185 were taken into consideration for „Distribution in the first round‟. Hence, as per the Board, after this „Distribution‟ and after the appointments made in the first round 755 (940-185) candidates of this category remained available. It may be pointed out that this 185, included in the „Distribution‟, were not even appointed against the vacancies of this category, rather they were appointed against vacancies of open category. Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 55/69 The result was that, even after the first round of appointments, all the 747 vacancies allotted to this category (male) were treated by the Board as still available. As per the said Chart annexed with the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit, against this claimed 747 available vacancies of this category, 618 candidates were appointed after the judgment. This Court fails to appreciate as to when, as per the Board‟s calculation itself, 755 candidates were still available with it, why only 618 were appointed after the judgment, and what happened to the remaining candidates (755- 618=137) and/or the vacancies (747-618=129).
44. Likewise, against 54 allotted vacancies for SC Women, only 14 candidates qualified in the written test and were called for physical test, out of them only 5 could pass the physical test. Hence in normal course, these 5 should have been appointed against allotted 54 vacancies, leaving 49 vacancies to be filled up in terms of the said letter of the Department dated 4.8.2010 in the second round. But this was not done and none was included in the „Distribution in the first round‟ and no one was appointed out of the 5.
45. For the EBC category in the N-HG quota, Board had allotted 909 vacancies for males and 60 for females, totaling 969, whereas according to percentage of reservation it should have been 910 only (see Table-1). In the written test, 1626 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 56/69 male candidates of this category passed who were called for physical test. Out of this 1626, as many as 1038 were declared fit in the physical test. This 1038, being more than 909, in normal course all the 909 vacancies should have been filled up from amongst the said 1038, leaving out 129 candidates to be considered for appointment against unfilled HG vacancies of the quota as per the said letter of the Department. But in the „Distribution in the first round‟ only 347 successful candidates were taken into consideration. These 347 were also not appointed against the available vacancies of the category, rather they were appointed against the available vacancies of open category. Thus, even after first round of appointments, for reasons best known to it, Board treated all the 909 vacancies available to it and 691 candidates (1038-347=691) available to it. This Court fails to appreciate as to then what was the reasons with the Board to appoint only 488 candidates after the D.B. judgment, leaving out 421 (909-488) vacancies and 203 (691-488) candidates. This is besides the fact that the Board had wrongly calculated the vacancies as per the percentage of reservation prescribed for this category in terms of the Act 3 of 1992.
46. Likewise, for 60 vacancies for EBC Women, only 19 had cleared the written test, who were called for physical test, in which only 13 could pass, out of which only 4 were Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 57/69 included in the „Distribution in the first round‟. But these 4 were also not appointed against the vacancies of the category and were appointed against the vacancies for open category women. Hence, after first round of appointments all the 60 vacancies were treated by the Board as still available and 9 (13-4) candidates available. But surprisingly, after the judgment, only 1 candidate was appointed leaving out 59 vacancies and 8 candidates, for no conceivable reasons.
47. For BC category, in the N-HG quota, the Board had allotted 568 vacancies for males and 41 vacancies for females, totaling to 609, whereas, as per the percentage of reservation prescribed in the Act, it should have been 607 (see Table-1). Against this 568 vacancies for males, 2024 candidates cleared written test who were called for physical test. Now, this Court fails to appreciate that, as to when only 2024 candidates of this category had cleared the written test and had been called for physical test, how the Board in the said Chart has claimed that 2282 candidates of this category had cleared the physical test. From where did this surplus 258 (2282-2024) candidates come from without clearing the written test ? The chart shows that out of this 2282 candidates, only 988 were included in the „Distribution in the first round‟. But these 988 were also not appointed against the vacancies of the category, rather they were appointed against the vacancies for Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 58/69 open category. Result was that, even after the first round of appointments, the Board still treated the 568 vacancies of the category as available, and 1294 (2282-988) candidates available, but after the said judgment appointed only 624. This Court fails to appreciate that if the Board had only 568 vacancies of the category available with it, how could it appoint 624 candidates out of the 1294 available. The surplus 56 candidates were appointed against which vacancy ?
48. Likewise, for BC Women, Board had allotted 41 vacancies, against which 80 candidates cleared the written test who were called for physical test. Now it is surprising to note that in the said Chart Board has claimed that 81 women of BC category had cleared physical test. There is no explanation as to from where this one surplus women BC candidate come from without clearing the written test. Out of this 81, only 16 were taken in the „Distribution in the first round‟, and they too were appointed against the vacancies for open category and not against the vacancies for their own category. The result was that, after the first round of appointments, the Board claimed the allotted 41 vacancies to this category still available and 65 (81-16) candidates available, but, after the judgment, appointed only 25, leaving out 16 (41-25) vacancies and 40 (65-25) candidates still available.
49. For 3% vertical reservation for Women of Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 59/69 Backward Class, as prescribed in the Act, 139 vacancies were allotted by the Board, whereas as per the calculation it should have been 152. Anyway, the said Chart shows that no one under this category cleared the written test and hence no one was called for physical test and no one was appointed.
50. Now coming to the Unreserved/Open/General category, as will be evident from Table-IV, out of quota of 5058 vacancies for N-HG, 50%, i.e. 2529 vacancies was required to be allotted to this category, whereas the Board allotted only 2433 vacancies. This 2433 included open (males) (2180), women (169) and gurkhas (84) (see Tables-II & III). Against this 2180+169+84 vacancies, total 13435 candidates (Open-13286, women-138, gurkhas-11) qualified in the written examination (see Table-V & VI). These 13435 candidates were called for physical test (PET-1), in which only 961 open, 40 women and 2 gurkhas could get through (see Table-VII). Thus deducting the number of candidates clearing PET-1 from the allotted vacancies, the vacancies remained were 1219 (2180-961), 129 (169-40) and 82 (84-2) respectively (see Table-IX). But, as will be clear from Table-XI, out of the said 961 candidates, only 530 were included in „Distribution in the first round‟, but surprisingly actual appointment letters were issued to 2062 candidates against vacancies of this category. Similarly out of the 40 women, who Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 60/69 cleared PET-1, only 4 were included in „Distribution in the first round‟, but total 24 candidates were issued appointment letters. The Board has nowhere explained as to what happened to the leftover 431 (961-530) open and 36 (40-4) women candidates who had cleared PET-1 (see Table-XIII). On the other hand, it is apparent that, the Board took the PET-1 also as merit test, and clubbed together said 185 SC, 12 ST, 347 EBC, 988 BC, 530 Open candidates (185+12+347+988+530=2062), who had been included in the „Distribution in the first round‟, and appointed all of them against the allotted vacancies for Open category. Similarly in Women also 16 BC, 4 EBC and 4 Open, included in „Distribution in the first round‟ were clubbed together and were all appointed against vacancies allotted to Open category. This was clearly in teeth of clause (h) under the heading „Process for recruitment in District Police and Military Police‟ of paragraph 4 of Notification No. 6843 dated 11.08.2008, incorporated in the advertisement also, which reads as follows:-
"(h) Candidates selected on the basis of written examination will have to appear in physical test / measurement and it will be mandatory to qualify in the same, but no marks will be given on the basis of physical test / measurement."
51. This may be pointed out again that, in the first round of litigation, this breakup of figures, noticed above, of the appointments made in the first round was not brought to the notice Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 61/69 of this Court and this Court proceeded on the premise that the appointments made were strictly in the respective categories. The figures produced by the Board, were in fact, assumed to be correct by the Court and hence only legal issues raised in the case were considered by this Court. The Division Bench also proceeded accordingly to consider issues of law only and challenge to the findings of this Court on them.
52. But in this round of litigation, the unsuccessful candidates have raised the issue of the Board having made a mess of the matter by wrong calculations in working out the vacancies, availability of candidates, preparation of panel after the judgment and placement of candidates and their appointments. This necessitated calling for the entire data in a chart form and its analysis by the Court.
53. The Board claims that, after first round of appointments, and obviously after the judgment of the Division Bench, remaining vacancies were filled up by available candidates first, in compliance to the orders of this Court. As per the said Chart, at this stage, in the category of SC, the Board had 747 vacancies of N-HG quota and had 755 candidates available, but surprisingly they appointed 618. Why ? There is no explanation in the pleadings. Similarly, in ST category they had 103 vacancies Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 62/69 available and 56 candidates, but appointed only 41. In EBC category they had 909 vacancies and 691 candidates, but appointed only 488. In BC category they had 568 vacancies and 1294 candidates, but appointed 624. How and why ? From where did this surplus vacancies come from? Did they encroach upon the quota of vacancies for HG in this category at this stage itself ? In General category, they claim available vacancies as 118 only and available candidates as 431, but they appointed 1515 ! How ? This Court totally fails to appreciate the rationale behind this. From where did the surplus candidates and vacancies come from ? For SC Women, 54 vacancies and 5 candidates were available, but none was appointed. For EBC Women, against 60 vacancies, 9 candidates were available, but only 1 was appointed. For BC Women 41 vacancies were available, 65 candidates were available, but only 25 were appointed. For unreserved open, against 145 vacancies, 36 candidates were available, but 30 were appointed.
54. Up to this stage, in terms of the said Letter No. 699 dated 04.08.2010 of the Home (Police) Department, the remaining vacancies of the N-HG as well as HG had to be identified separately. For both separately, candidates in the ratio of 1:5 had to be called for physical test, and those clearing the physical test, had to be appointed against the vacancies of their own category and quota. Thereafter only the remaining vacancies Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 63/69 of HG had to be filled up from the N-HG candidates of the respective category in accordance with their ranking in the panel. For this surplus N-HG candidates of any category had to be placed at the top of the panel of their respective category and appointed first against unfilled HG vacancies of their respective category before other candidates, freshly call for physical test on the basis of 1:5 ratio, were to be considered. The following table will show as to how at this stage also the Board faltered.
Table-XVI N-HG
1 2 3 4 5 5 6
Serial Category/ As per Chart As per Chart Surplus Candidates Candidate
as per sub-category Vacancy Candidates Candidates required to s called for
chart available after available after be called as PET-2
2nd round of 2nd round of per Letter
appointments appointments No. 699 dated
4.8.2010
1 SC 747-618=129 755-618 8 5786
=137
2 ST 103-41=62 56-41=15 62-15 = 905
47x5 =235
3 EBC 909-488=421 691-488 421-203= 7604
=203 218 x 5
=1090
4 BC 568-624= 1294-624 670+56 3763
(-56) =670 =726
5 Unreserved 118-431= 431-1515 1084+313 1512
/Open-All (-313) =(-1084) =1397
categories
6 SC Women 54-0=54 54- 0=5 54-5=49x5 497
=245
7 ST Women 4-3=1 - 1 29
8 EBC 60-9=51 9-1=8 9-8=1x5=5 552
Women
9 BC Women 41-25=16 65-25=40 40-16=24 241
10 Unreserved 145-30=115 36-30=6 115-6 1571
/Open (All =109x5
categories) =545
Women
11 Women - - 1411
belonging
to
Backward
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014
64/69
Classes -
3%
12 Gurkha - - 770
13 Gurkha - 0
Women -
Total
55. This Court does not consider it necessary to analyze the data furnished by the Board through the said Chart any further. This Court also does not consider it necessary to analyze the data in respect of vacancies earmarked for HG quota in any more detail, as filling up of the remaining vacancies of the HG quota by the N-HG candidates was dependent on the working out of the available candidates of different categories of HG quota after filling up of all the vacancies of HG quota by relaxing the qualifying marks and calling the HG candidates of each category also separately in the ratio of 1:5 from the top of the initial result of each category published after written test. This Court also refrains from any further analysis of the data of the said Chart as it has no intentions to make it exhaustive and make it a guiding factor for consideration by the respondents for any further action in the matter. This Court would like to make it clear that, the analysis in this judgment, in the form of tables or in discussion, is only illustrative and was necessitated on account of the issues raised in the writ applications of this batch. Hence this Court does not vouchsafe that each and every figure, in the tables and/or in the discussions in the judgment, are correct and do not call for cross Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 65/69 checking or verification. This Court makes it clear that this Court has only made an attempt to pick up the figures from the said Chart with the 3rd supplementary affidavit and make calculations and analysis on that basis and/or in accordance with law.
56. But from the limited scrutiny this Court could make of the actions taken by the Board in the process of recruitment of constables in the Bihar Police Service Cadre pursuant to Advertisement No. 2 of 2009, this is clear than they have made a mess of it. Facts and figures, which were not placed before this Court in the first round of litigation, and which have come to surface due to analysis of the data furnished in said Chart, makes it clear that the Board committed mistake in the beginning in calculating the vacancies itself for each reserved category as per the percentage laid down in Act 3 of 1992. From the Advertisement it is clear that the Board took into account the requisitions from the districts, intimating the vacancies, and divided them district-wise itself as per percentage laid down in the said Act 3 of 1992. But when by virtue of Bihar Police Act, 2007 (Act 7 of 2007) the entire police force of the State had become a unified cadre known as „Bihar Police Service‟, then where was the occasion for the Board to take into account vacancies of each district separately and distributing them in terms of Act 3 of 1992 under different category ? Another gross mistake the Board Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 66/69 committed was treating the physical evaluation test / measurement also as some sort of test of merit and transferred candidates of reserved categories to general categories at this stage also. As is clear from the extract of Notification No. 6843 dated 11.08.2008 reproduced above, this physical evaluation test (PET) was essentially a measurement test and only to judge the physical fitness of the candidates and nothing more. But someone somewhere in the Board clearly ignored or overlooked the clear language of the said Notification in this regard. There have been other mistakes also by the Board in working of the numbers of vacancies and candidates, which have been noticed and pointed out in the tables and in discussion above and need not be discussed here again.
57. But the biggest blunder the Board appears to have committed was that it did not apply the relaxation given by the Home (Police) Department through Letter No. 699 dated 04.08.2010 to home guard quota first and did not call the home guard candidates in the ration of 1:5 first for physical test and straightaway proceeded to fill the available vacancies of home guard quota by non-home guard candidates by calling them in that ratio in terms of the said letter. Amongst the petitioners of this batch of cases, left out home guard candidates are also before this Court, raising their grievance in this regard. In none of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 67/69 pleadings of the Board there is any answer to this, nor the Board, through pleadings or through the figures in the Chart, has claimed that it did call the home guard candidates in the ratio of 1:5 first for physical test and appointed the physically fit out of them first and then only reverted to fill the remaining vacancies from the non-home guard candidates called in the ratio of 1:5. In this context the following directions in sub-paragraph ( ) of the said letter was completely missed/ignored by the Board:-
"
"
58. Whether the mistakes were bonafide or otherwise and whether they were committed by any individual or a group of them, are matters not for consideration by this Court, but there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Board has made a complete mess of the entire process of selection. Normally this would have led to quashing/scraping of the entire process with a direction to the Board to proceed afresh from the stage of publication of result of written examination after re-distribution of vacancies to different categories strictly in terms of Act 3 of 1992. But this can lead to complete chaos and thousand of candidates, for no fault of theirs, would come back on road. This will be inequitable and should be avoided. But wrong caused to the
-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-201468/69 petitioners, and may be many more others, should also be remedied. In circumstance, this Court is of the view that the Board and the Home (Police) Department should be given one more chance to rectify their mistakes and take corrective measures, by taking into service all those candidates, who may have remained left out due to their fault, with special eye on the preferential claims of home guard candidates on the remaining vacancies of their quota. This exercise must be done meticulously at the highest level of the hierarchy to rule out any recurrence of mistakes and injustice.
59. As a result this matter is referred to the present Director General of Police, Government of Bihar. He shall get the entire exercise re-worked out, on the basis of final result of the written examination, under his direct supervision, by a team of competent officers of his office. He shall get the specific points of mistakes committed by the Board identified, with its extent and nature. He shall consider specific steps which may be required to be taken to rectify specific mistakes. He shall get the candidates identified who may have suffered due to these mistakes by the Board, in spite of being higher in the result sheet of written examination. He shall also get the home guard candidates identified who may have been left out of consideration, in spite of directions of the Department contained in the said letter no. 699 Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 69/69 dated 04.08.2010. He shall direct the Board to hold a process of physical evaluation test for such left out candidates, for HG candidates first and then for N-HG candidates, and recommend their names to the Department for their appointment on available vacancies or next available vacancy, as the case may be. He shall see that transparency is maintained in the matter, in as much as, any party seeking any information is supplied with full information on payment of requisite cost/fee, as may be necessary. He shall see to it that the entire exercise, as directed, is complete in all respects, within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear, that in case this exercise is not complete within the time, as fixed, any aggrieved party shall be at liberty to move again for scraping of the entire process of selection and for any consequential relief.
60. It is again made clear that this Court does not claim the figures in the various tables herein and in the order, and calculations made on that basis as absolutely correct. Hence the entire exercise shall be done independently and without reference to any calculation and figures in this order and shall be done only in accordance with law. Besides, the Director General of Police shall be at liberty to move this Court for any clarification/modification in the order, if he considers the same to be absolutely essential for compliance of the order or for Patna High Court CWJC No.15487 of 2011 (34) dt.12-08-2014 70/69 completing the exercise. It is again made clear that the exercise, in terms of this order, should not be affected or guided by figures and calculations made in this order.
61. All the writ applications of the batch are accordingly disposed of with the above observations and directions.
(Jayanandan Singh, J) Pradeep/-
(AFR) U