Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Vijay Kumar Mandal & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 2014

Author: R.M. Doshit

Bench: Chief Justice, Ashwani Kumar Singh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No.88 of 2014
                                          IN
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18574 of 2012
===========================================================
1. Suresh Yadav, Son of Sita Ram Choudhary, resident of Village - Shiv Asthan,
P.S. - Thawe, District - Gopalganj
2. Suresh Kumar S/O Late Parmeshwar Ray, resident of Village - Sarariya West
Tola, P.S. - Lalganj, District - Vaishali

                                                     .... .... Petitioners/ Appellants
                                       Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna
3. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary
5. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
6. The Deputy Secretary, Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection, Patna
7. Dinesh Nath Paswan, son of Sri Dwarika Paswan, resident of Village Nawadoj,
PS Rupow, District Nawada
8. Sunil Kumar, son of Matukdhari Singh, resident of Village Attoua, PS Nawada,
District Nawada
9. Rajesh Kumar Mahesh, son of Sri Jagarnath Rout, resident of P.H. Division near
Court Compound, PS Siwan, District Siwan
10. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of late Heera Singh, resident of Village Alampur, PS
Shiv Sagar, District Rohtas
11. Jeetendra Prasad Gupta, son of Sri Nathuni Sah, resident of Village Babhani, PS
Kargahar, District Rohtas
12. Jaibind Kumar Ranjan, son of Sri Mahendra Prasad, resident of Village Hurane,
PS Dhanarua, District Patna
13. Faiz Akam, son of Serajuddin, resident of Mohalla Nahe Khan Street Panchayat
Akhara, PS Kotwali (Gaya), District Gaya
14. Raj Kumar Shah, son of Kuleshwar Shah, resident of Village Barbighi, PS Balia,
District Begusarai
15. Sheo Kumar, son of Late Sukhdeo Singh, resident of Village Dakra, PS Ramgarh
Chouk, District Lakhisarai
16. Sidheshwar Prasad, son of Prasadi Mahto, resident of Village Simeria, PS
Bikrampur, District Jamui
17. Ram Chandra Prasad, son of Late Raghunandan Ram, resident of Kudrasi
English, PS Rampur Chouram, District Arwal
18. Kuljeet Singh, son of Balrup Singh, resident of Village Bhagwanganj, PS
Bhagwanganj, District Patna
19. Mukesh Kumar, son of Mundrika Ram, resident of Village Dharampur, PS
Belaganj, District Gaya
20. Parash Nath Ram, son of Sri Ram Dayal Ram, resident of 53 Ashray Kutima
Apartment, Boring Canal Road, PS Budha Colony, District Patna
21. Kamedra Sah, son of Sri Subhag Sah, resident of Village Alampur, PS Shiv
Sagar, District Rohta

                                                  .... .... Respondents/ Respondents
                                        with
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         2 /18




    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1002 of 2013
                                               IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14709 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Satish Kumar, son of Shiv Ram Yadav, resident of village Deoghar, Post
        Amarpur, PS Medni Chowk, Distt. Lakhisarai, Roll No. 3885
    2. Saket Ranjan, son of late Dargehi mahto, resident of Village Deoghar, PS
        Medanichowki, Distt. Lakhisarai, Roll No. 2619
    3. Rakesh Kumar, son of Yadu Nanda Singh, resident of Village Deghara, Distt.
        Lakhisarai, Roll No. 4468
    4. Sanjay Keshav, son of Madeo Mehta, resident of Village Khanpur, PS
        Suryagarha, Distt. Lakhisarai
    5. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, son of Nawal Kishore Yadav, resident of Village Radha
        Nagar, PO Dhamdiha, PS Barahat, Distt. Banka
                                                           .... .... Petitioners/ Appellant
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources New
        Secretariat, Patna -1
    2. The Secretary, Human Resources News even, Patna -1
    3. The Chief Engineer, Human Resources New Secretariat, Patna -1
    4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Sheikhpura, Baily Road,
        Patna -14
    5. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Sheikhpura, Baily Road, Patna
        -14
                                                      .... .... Respondents/Respondents
                                              with
    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1007 of 2013
                                               IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14132 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Rajeev Ranjan Singh S/O Sri Ram Kailash Singh R/O Mohalla - Setu Nagar,
    Anisabad, P.S. Beur, Patna - 2, District - Patna
    2. Vijay Kumar S/O Sri Ram Swaroop Singh R/O At + P.O. Jaitpur, P.S. Barahiya,
    District - Lakhisarai
    3. Abhinandan Kumar S/O Sri Babu Lal Prasad R/O Station Road, Sultanganj,
    District - Bhagalpur
    4. Neeraj Kumar S/O Late Bilash Prasad Yadav At + P.O. Danda Bajar, P.S.
    Goradih, District - Bhagalpur
    5. Nikhil Kumar S/O Sri Anil Kumar Singh R/O Village + P.O. Naubatpur, District
    - Patna
    6. Sanjeev Kumar S/O Sri Rameshwar Prasad R/O Budhwa Mahadeo Sthan, P.S.
    Tekari, District - Gaya
    7. Shashikant Singh Shashi @ Shashikant Shashi S/O Ramchandra Pd. Singh R/O
    Village - Kalyanpur, P.S. Tarapur, District - Munger
    8. Sudhir Kumar S/O Yogendra Singh R/O Maghadh Colony, Road No.3, P.S.
    Maghadh Medical, Distt. Gaya
    9. Sanjiv Sinha S/O Late Parmanand Sinha R/O Road No.1 Adarsh Nagar, P.S.
    Phulwari Shariff, Distt. Patna
                                                                      .... .... Appellants
                                            Versus
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         3 /18




    1. The State of Bihar
    2. The Chief Secretary, through The State of Bihar, Patna
    3. The Chief Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms, Department, Govt. of
    Bihar, Patna
    4. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    5. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary
    6. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    7. The Deputy Secretary, Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection
    Commission, Patna
    8. Kumari Madhu, Wife of Shri Prem Chand Sahni Resident of Mohalla - New Bal
    Bahadurpur, P.O. + P.S. Laheria Sarai, District - Darbhanga
                                                                     .... .... Respondents
                                             with
    ===========================================================
                           Letters Patent Appeal No. 1026 of 2013
                                              IN
                        Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16616 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Ratan Kumar Son of Sri Ramrup Mandal R/O- Nayanagar, Rani Diyara, Post-
    Rani Diyara, Via- Mathurapur, District- Bhagalpur
    2. Ajay Kumar S/O Sri Sheoraj Prasad R/O- Adarsh Colony (Lichi Bagan) Shyam
    Chak, District- Chapra (Saran)
    3. Raghunath Roy S/O Fudena Roy R/O Shahpur, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
    4. Shrinivas Kumar S/O Sri Gena Singh R/O Village- Bania, P.S.- Gopalpur,
    District- Bhagalpur
    5. Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Sri Garbhu Prasad Singh R/O Village- Bania, P.S.-
    Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur
    6. Kaushlendra Kumar S/O Raghu Nandan Prasad R/O- Barbigha, P.S.- Barbigha,
    District- Sheikhpura
    7. Anil Kumar Nayak S/O Late Birendra Prasad Nayak R/O- Bari Durga Asthan,
    P.O.- Rosera, District- Samastipur
    8. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Kamal Nayan Mehta, Resident of Huseana Diyara, P.S.-
    Balia, District- Begusarai
    9. Prakash Kumar S/O Basudeo Ravidash R/O Village- Bari Chhariyari, P.S.-
    Tharihri, District- Nalanda
    10. Satyendra Narayana Singh, Son of Sri Kameshwar Prasad, Resident of Road No.
    1 Shiv Nagar, Khemnichak, P.S.- Patrak Nagar, District- Patna
                                                          .... .... Petitioners/Appellants
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
    2. The Principal Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt.
    of Bihar, Patna
    3. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary, Veterinary College, Patna-
    14
    5. Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. The Deputy Secretary, Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection
    Commission, Patna
    7. Tarnand Singh, Son of Yogendra Naryan Singh, resident of Village- Dhena, P.S.-
    Azamnagar, District- Katihar
    8. Shaligram Prasad Mandal, Son of Ram Nath Prasad Mandal P.S.- Pirpainti,
    District- Bhagalpur
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         4 /18




    9. Arun Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Narayan Saw, Resident of Naqsha Ghar, Near
    Ansari Market, Main Road Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand
    10. Manoj Kumar, Son of Upendra Prasad Sah, Resident of Vill.- Ghia, P.S.-
    Goradih, District- Bhagalpur
    11. Pankaj Kumar, Son of Sakaldeo Singh, Resident of Village- Bishunpur, P.S.-
    Parbatta, District- Khagaria
    12. Ravi Ranjan Kumar Singh, Son of Upendra Naryan Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
    Swami Vivekanand Nagar, P.S.- Muffasil, Begusarai, Dist.- Begusarai
                                                       .... .... Respondents/ Respondents
                                             with
    ===========================================================
                           Letters Patent Appeal No. 1064 of 2013
                                              IN
                        Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17206 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Girindra Kumar, Son of- Kedar Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village- Maheshlour,
    P.S.- Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai
    2. Amar Kumar, Son of- Sri Girish Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Bana
    Chawki, P.S.- Dhashara, District- Munger
    3. Ashok Kumar 'Alok', Son of- Chhedi Sahni, Resident of- Bariarpur, P.S.-
    Bariarpur, District- Munger
    4. Ram Balak Paswan, Son of- Samoli Paswan, Resident of Village- Sahuri, P.S.-
    Birpur, District- Begusarai
    5. Gyanchand Chaudhary Son of- Sri Jadagi Chaudhary, Resident of- Punpun, P.S.-
    Punpun (Pipra), District- Patna
    6. Sanjeev Kumar, Son of- Sachidanand Singh, Resident of Village- Hathidah, P.S.-
    Hathidah, District- Patna
    7. Manish Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Umesh Prasad Sinha, Resident of- Mohalla-
    West Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna
    8. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Baleshwar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Kharanchi Road,
    Devi Asthan, Neemtar, District- Patna
    9. Sanjit Kumar Prabhakar, Son of- Sri Shivnandan Prasad, Resident of- Mohalla-
    Nilami Gali, Salempur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna
    10. Satyendra Kumar, Son of- Suren Singh, Resident of Village- Bhchol, P.S.- Pipra
    (Punpun), District- Patna
    11. Bipin Bihari Kumar Vikal, Son of- Sri Rama Shankar Prasad, Resident of-
    Village- Pipra, P.S.- Jamhor, District- Aurangabad
    12. Rajesh Ranjan, Son of- Sri Naresh Prasad, Resident of- Mohalla- D And C
    Colony, 'B' Type Flat No. 16, B.C.C.L., Jeahgora, Dhanbad, Jharkhand
    13. Upendra Kumar, Son of- Sri Harshu Pawan, Resident of- Village- Bharkuniya,
    P.S.- Agren (Sasaram), District- Rohtas
    14. Bhaskar Prasad, Son of- Mahabir Prasad, Resident of Village- Parwalpur, P.S.-
    Vain, District- Nalanda
    15. Prabhat Kumar Ranjan, Son of- Sri Ram Lakhan Sahu, Resident of Village-
    Hemiapur, P.S.- Dharhara, District- Munger
    16. Manohar Kumar Priyadarshi, Son of- Sri Ram Bahadur Sah, Resident of Village-
    Bhojua, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria
    17. Kanhaiya Prasad Dinkar, Son of- Ram Ekbal Ram P.S.- Vikramganj, District-
    Rohtas
                                                           .... .... Petitioners/Appellants
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         5 /18




    2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Water Resource Department, Govt.
    Of Bihar, Patna
    3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    5. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14
    7. Under Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna- 14
    8. Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of- Jagnarajan Singh, Resident of Village- Sone Nagar,
    P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad
    9. Jitendra Kumar Chaudhari, Son of- Shivcharan Chaudhary C/O- Sri S.N,.
    Chaudhari, H/No.- 38/9, Hanuman Nagar, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastri Nagar,
    District- Patna
    10. Niraj Kumar, Son of- Sri Karu Ram, Resident of Village- Masaurhi, P.S.-
    Masaurhi, District- Patna
    11. Mirtunjay Kumar, Son of- Ramavtar Paswan, Resident of Village- Kolawan,
    P.S.- Kolawan, District- Nalanda
    12. Gajendra Kumar Pal, Son of- Karamdeo Bhagat, Resident of Village- Pipra, P.S.-
    Jamhor, District- Aurangabad
    13. Santosh Kumar Pankaj, Son of- Sri Chamk Lal Yadav, Resident of Village-
    Baghpara, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger
    14. Surendra Kumar, Son of Maro Rajak R/O- Mohalla- West Patel Nagar, P.S.-
    Sashtri Nagar, Dist.- Patna
    15. Arun Kumar, Son of- Mahawal Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Belaganj, P.S.-
    Belaganj, District- Gaya
    16. Anil Paswan, Son of- Lakhu Paswan, Resident of Village- Kalyanpur, Bali, P.S.-
    Chandi, District- Nalanda
    17. Hira Shankar Kumar, Son of Krishna Deo Paswan, Resident of Mohalla-
    Nagarpalika Colony, Quarter No. 4, P.S. Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas
    18. Prabhawati Kumari, Wife of Sri Praduman Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Nehru
    Nagar, P.S.- Gulzarbag, District- Patna
    19. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Son of- Gorakha Nath Prasad, C/O- Rajesh Kumar
    Gupta, Resident of- Village- Sahpur, P.S.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj
                                                      .... .... Respondents/Respondents
                                             with
    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1097 of 2013
                                             IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19674 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Suraj Nandan Kumar Singh S/O Late Harinandan Singh, Resident of Village -
    Kanpa, P.S. Ranitalab (Kanpa), District - Patna
    2. Anand Kumar S/O Sri Sri Jitendra, Resident of Village - Pakahi, P.S. - Belaganj,
    District - Gaya
    3. Ranjit Kumar Verma S/O Late Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Gola
    Road, P.S. Silao, District - Nalanda
    4. Sarita Kumari, Daughter of Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad, Resident of Mohalla -
    Dakhali Ghat Nachali Garhpar, Biharsharif, P.S. Biharsharif, District - Nalanda
                                                                     .... .... Appellants
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar
    2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         6 /18




    4. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    5. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    7. The Under Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    8. Surender Pd. Singh S/O - Late Ram Balak Singh, Resident of village -
    Moapkalan, P.S. - Imadpur, District - Bhojpur
    9. Anil Kumar Singh S/O Shri Rasik Bihari Singh, Resident of village- Mauna
    Hussey Chapra , P.S. Chapra, District - Saran
                                                                      .... .... Respondents
                                             with
    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1221 of 2013
                                               IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21948 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Vijay Kumar Mandal, S/o Sri Dharamdeo Mandal, resident of Village + P.O.
        Bakharpur, PS Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur, Bihar
    2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Amin Prasad Mandal, at Bhola Tola, PO Krishnadaspur, PS
        Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Pin -813222
    3. Ravindra Kumar Mandal, S/o Moti Lal Mandal, Village Babupur, PO Bakharpur,
        PS Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur, Pin -813209
                                                                       .... .... Appellants
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
    2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
        Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    3. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary, Veterinary College, Patna -
        14
    5. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. The Deputy Secretary, Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection
        Commission, Patna
                                                 ....      .....Respondents
    7. Kanchan Kumari, C/o Ramji Prasad Singh, Janki Niwas Mustafabad, A P
        Colony, Gaya, Dist. Gaya, PS Cherki, Pin - 823001
    8. Niranjan Kumar Singh, C/o Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, At + PO Pansalwa,
        Thana -Beldour, Dist. Khagariya
    9. Jay Prakash Ram, s/o Sri Balsharan Mochi, Village + P.O. Narama, Via
        Hulasganj, PS Hulasganj, Dist. Jehanabad
                                                         .... .... Petitioners/Respondents
                                             with
    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1358 of 2013
                                               IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12121 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sri Siyasharan Rajak, Vill. Salimpur, PS Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.
        Patna
    2. Vinay Kumar, S/o Sri Deo Narayan Singh, Village Gamharpur, PS Obra, Dist.
        Aurangabad
    3. Randhir Kumar, S/o Sri Pankaj Kumar, Vill. Gonpura, PO Kalilabad, PS
        Kadirganj, Dist. Patna
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         7 /18




    4. Vikas Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Nagina Singh, Mohalla- Hare Krishna Colony, PS
        & Dist. Sasaram
    5. Kumar Dhiraj, S/o Late Rama Shankar Ram, At West Railway Gumti, Jagdeo
        Nagar, Dist. Ara
    6. Vivek Kumar, s/o Sri Rajesh Kumar, Mohalla- Baldeo Bhawan Road, Mohanpur
        Punaichak, PS Shastri Nagar, Dist. Patna
    7. Kumar Einstin, S/o Ashok Prasad, at Malvigaha, PO Kaliyachak, PS Hilsa, Dist.
        Nalanda
    8. Kapil Muni, S/o Sri Chandrika Prasad, Village -Gonpura, PO Netawul, PS
        Dhanaura, Dist. Patna
    9. Ganesh Kumar, S/o Ramdeo Prasad At & PS Daudnagar, Dist. Aurangabad
    10. Shailendra Kumar, S/o Sri Rasjendra Singh, At Kurthoul Pool Per, PO Kurthoul,
        PS Parsa Bazar, Dist. Patna
    11. Rambriksha Prasad, S/o Babulal Prasad, Vill. & PS Deoriyaper, Dist. Jehanabad
    12. Anil Kumar Paswan, S/o Ram Baran Paswan, Vill. Japher Chak, PO Masthu, PS
        Belchi, Dist. Patna
    13. Sudhir Kumar, S/o Sri Ram Bhaajan Prasad, Mohalla -Chitakohara, Ambedkar
        Chowk, PS Gardanibagh, Dist. Patna
                                                        .... .... Petitioners/Appellants
                                           Versus
    1. The State of Bihar
    2. Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of
        Bihar, Patna
    3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
    4. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    5. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    7. Under Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
                                                                   .... .... Respondents
                                            with
    ===========================================================
                          Letters Patent Appeal No. 1402 of 2013
                                             IN
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18574 of 2012
    ===========================================================
    1. Rajesh Kumar Mahesh S/O Sri Jaganath Raut R/O P.H. Division, Near Court
    Compound, P.S.- Siwan, District- Siwan
    2. Sheo Kumar S/O Late Sukhdeo Singh R/O Village- Dakra P.S.- Ramgarh Chouk,
    District- Lakhisarai
    3. Sidheswar Prasad S/O Late Prasadi Mahto R/O Village- Simeria, Bikrampur, P.S.
    + District- Jamui
    4. Parash Nath Ram S/O Sri Ram Dayal Ram R/O 53 Ashray Kutima Apartment
    Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna
    5. Jaibind Kumar Ranjan S/O Sri Mahendra Prasad R/O Village- Hurani, P.S.-
    Dhanarua, District- Patna
    6. Sunil Kumar S/O Matukdhari Singh R/O Village- Attoua, P.S.- Nawada, District-
    Nawada
    7. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Late Heera Singh R/O Village- Mokaram, P.S.- Kudra,
    District- Kaimur (Bhabhua)
    8. Raj Kumar Sha S/O Late Kaleshwar Sah R/O Village- Barbighi, P.S.- Balia,
    District- Begusarai
    9. Kamendra Sah S/O Sri Subhag Sah R/O Village- Alampur, P.S.- Shivsagar,
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         8 /18




    District- Rohtash
    10. Jitendra Prasad Gupta S/O Sri Nathuni Sah R/O Village Babhani, P.S.- Kargahar,
    District- Rohtash
                                                                      .... .... Appellants
                                            Versus
    1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
    2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
    Govt. of Bihar Patna
    3. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt.of Bihar, Patna
    4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary, Veterinary College, Patna-
    14
    5. Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna
    6. The Deputy Secretary, Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection
    Commission, Bihar
    7. Dinesh Nath Paswan S/O Sri Dwarika Paswan R/O Village- Nawadoj, P.S.
    Rupow, District Nawada
    8. Faiz Akram S/O Md. Serajuddin R/O Mohalla- Nahe Khan Street Panchayat
    Akhara, P.S.- Kotwali (Gaya), District- Gaya
    9. Ram Chandra Prasad, Son of Late Raghunandan Ram R/O Kudrasi English, P.S.-
    Rampur Chauram, District- Arwal
    10. Suresh Kumar S/O Late Parmeshwar Ray R/O Village- Sarariya West Tola, P.S.
    Lalganj, District- Vaishali
    11. Kuljeet Singh S/O Balrup Singh R/O Village- Bhagwanganj, P.S.- Bhagwanganj,
    District- Patna
    12. Suresh Yadav S/O Sila Ram Choudhary R/O Village- Sheosthan, P.S.- Thawe,
    District- Gopalganj
    13. Mukesh Kumar S/O Mundrika Ram R/O Village- Dharampur, P.S.- Belaganj,
    District- Gaya
                                                                     .... .... Respondents
    ===========================================================
    Appearance :
    (In LPA No. 88 of 2014)
    For the Appellant/s :           Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                    Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
                                    Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent State :      Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                    Mrs. Mohini Kumari, AC to SC 2
    For the Staff Selection
    Commission:                     Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                    Mr. S S Sundaram, Advocate
    (In LPA No. 1002 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :          Mr. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, Advocate
                                   Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent State :     Mr. Mehboob Ashraf, AC to SC 27
    (In LPA No. 1007 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :          Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                   Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent State :     Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh
    (In LPA No. 1026 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :          Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         9 /18




                                      Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent State :        Mr. Amar Nath Dev, SC
                                      Mr.Thakur Jai Singh, AC to SC 26
    (In LPA No. 1064 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :            Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
    For the Respondent/s :           Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karn, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Siddharth Prasad, Advocate
    (In LPA No. 1097 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :             Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
                                      Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
    For the Respondent/s :            Mr. Jawahar Prasad Karn, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate
    (In LPA No. 1221 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :            Mr. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                     Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent/s :           Mr. Ajit Kumar, SC 28
                                     Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
    (In LPA No. 1358 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :            Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondent/s :           Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. S S Sundaram, Advocate
    (LPA No. 1402 of 2013)
    For the Appellant/s :            Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate

    For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, AC to SC 2
    ===========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              and
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
    C A V JUDGMENT
    (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
    Date: 10-11-2014

                  This group of Appeals preferred by the writ petitioners under
        clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from a common judgment and
        order dated 7th May 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in
        CWJC No. 12121 of 2012 and other writ petitions. The matter at
        dispute is the recruitment for 2058 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil)
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         10 /18




        in Water Resources Department pursuant to the advertisement dated
        29th November 2006 published by the Bihar Staff Selection
        Commission (hereinafter referred to as `the Commission').
                 It appears that the State Government made recruitment for
        appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil)/(Mechanical)
        under the advertisement published on 26th May 2006 and 4th August
        2006 on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the candidates
        in aggregate. Pursuant to the requisition made by the State
        Government, the Commission published the above referred
        advertisement on 29th November 2006, inter alia, for recruitment for
        2058 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). According to the said
        advertisement, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer
        (Civil), the candidate must posses a Diploma in Civil Engineering or
        Rural Engineering from an institution recognized by the Bihar
        Technical Examination Board or the Central Technical Examination
        Board. The examination was conducted in two papers of 100 marks
        each in General Knowledge and in Civil Engineering. The
        petitioners claim that they had successfully cleared the examination
        by obtaining the qualifying marks at the said examination and that
        they have a right to appointment as Junior Engineer under the
        Government of Bihar.
                 It is indeed true that the Commission did prepare and publish
        a merit list of 800 candidates who had secured 40% marks in
        aggregate. The said merit list was not approved by the State
        Government. The State Government noticed that many of the
        candidates in the select list had failed to secure the qualifying marks
        in Civil Engineering but had secured qualifying marks in aggregate.
        In the opinion of the State Government, the candidates who had
        failed to secure qualifying marks in Civil Engineering, were not
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         11 /18




        suitable for appointment as Engineers under the State Government.
        The State Government, therefore, under letter dated 23rd May 2012
        requested the Commission to re-examine the merit list and to prepare
        a merit list of the candidates who had secured qualifying marks in
        both the papers. Pursuant to the said request, the Commission
        prepared a fresh merit list of 392 candidates who had secured
        qualifying marks in each paper. In the process, the petitioners who
        had earlier been placed on the merit list have lost their ground. The
        petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226
        of the Constitution to question the decision of the State Government
        and the latter merit list of 392 successful candidates prepared and
        published by the Commission.
                 The appellants-petitioners have relied on the Government
        Resolution dated 22nd December 1990 containing the General
        Instructions for the Bihar Public Service Commission and the Bihar
        Staff Selection Commission in respect of the qualifying marks to be
        obtained by the candidates in various competitive examinations for
        recruitment to the posts under the State Government. In the
        submission of the petitioners, the said Resolution did not specify that
        the qualifying marks indicated in the said Resolution were required
        to be obtained in each individual paper. The Bihar Staff Selection
        Commission had earlier, pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th
        May 2006 and 4th August 2006, made selection on the basis of the
        qualifying marks obtained in aggregate. The same criterion was
        required to be continued in respect of the subject recruitment. The
        Commission had indeed prepared the merit list on the basis of the
        qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in aggregate without
        reference to the marks obtained in each individual paper. The
        petitioners had been declared successful under the original merit list
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         12 /18




        prepared and published in January 2012. The petitioners, therefore,
        had an enforceable right to appointment on the principle of
        legitimate expectation. In the submission of the petitioners, the State
        Government had, after commencement of the recruitment process,
        altered the principle of selection to the detriment of the writ
        petitioners. The action of the State Government was not permissible
        as held by plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
        petitioners have alleged hostile discrimination vis-à-vis the Junior
        Engineers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May
        2006 and 4th August 2006.
                 The Petitions were contested by the State Government and the
        Commission. The Commission has produced the above referred facts
        and correspondence before the Court. The State Government has
        relied on the above referred Government Resolution dated 22 nd
        December 1990. The State Government has also relied upon the
        lopsided result published on the basis of the qualifying marks
        obtained by the candidates in aggregate. The State Government
        pointed out that as many as 335 candidates out of the 800 candidates
        recommended by the Commission had failed to secure even 33%
        marks in the subject of Civil Engineering. Out of them, many had
        secured less than 0 mark (on account of minus marking), some less
        than 10% and some less then 20%. Thus, totally unfit persons had
        entered into the arena of the selected candidates solely on the basis
        of the marks obtained in the paper of General Knowledge.
                 Learned Single Judge has reproduced the above referred
        Resolution dated 22nd December 1990 in extenso. The learned Single
        Judge has considered the above contentions raised by the writ
        petitioners and has rejected each of the aforesaid contentions.
                 The learned Single Judge has held, "the Government, being
 Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014

                                         13 /18




        the appointing authority, had, therefore, a right to question such
        recommendation of the Commission and in fact, if the
        Government could have rejected the entire recommendation of
        the Commission as a whole and could have asked for a fresh
        selection to be undergone even that was very much permissible.
        Law in this regard is well settled that the recommendation of the
        Commission is not binding on the appointing authority and for a
        valid reason, the appointing authority can refuse to accept such
        recommendation made by the Commission. Reference in this
        connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex
        Court in the case of Shankaran Dash vs. Union of India reported
        in (1991) 3 SCC 47."
                 The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the
        matter of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. to hold, "the petitioners at best
        were only empanelled candidates and, therefore, if the
        recommendation of the Commission was not binding on the
        Government, the same also did not create any vested right or
        give rise to any legitimate expectation to the petitioners as was
        also held in the case of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of
        India & Anr., reported in (1996)10 SCC 742."
                 The learned Single Judge has also examined the individual
        challenge to the marks recorded by the Commission and has
        discussed the same in great details. In the present Appeals the said
        challenge is not raised before us.
                 With respect to the Government Resolution dated 22nd
        December 1990, the learned Single Judge has held, "the minimum
        cut-off, therefore, prescribed in the government resolution dated
        22.12.1990

in the written examination cannot be read as an aggregate for all the subjects in which case a candidate securing Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014 14 /18 80 out of 100 in General Knowledge and even 0 in a subject of Engineering could claim selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. When, the Government resolution dated 22.12.1990 fixes the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination to be conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and Bihar Staff Selection Commission it essentially envisages that the candidate must secure the minimum cut-off marks in each of the subject of the written examination." The above view of the learned Single Judge is supported by the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 737]; of Director General of Telecommunication & Anr. Vs. T N Peethambaran [(1986) 4 SCC 348]; and of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. vs. Joint Admission Board & Ors. [(2012) 1 SCC 157].

In respect of the past practice adopted by the Commission, the learned Single Judge has held that in case the Government or the Commission had committed any illegality in past the same cannot be perpetuated. The principle of equality cannot be invoked in such matters. The said view has been supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurusharan Singh & Ors. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. [(1996) 2 SCC 459].

In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has examined each and every contention raised by the writ petitioners in great details and has dealt with each issue extensively supporting his view by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge.

Nevertheless, as the Appeals have been heard by us at a great length, we shall record the submissions made before us in a nutshell. Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014 15 /18 The facts recorded hereinabove are not in dispute. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellants. Mr. Jitendra Singh has reiterated the contentions in respect of the past practice followed by the Commission, particularly in respect to the recruitment of Civil Engineers pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006. He has invoked the principle of contemporaneous exposition as explained in the Black's Legal Dictionary, (7th Edition, page 334), and has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T Beermasthan [(2009) 5 SCC 545]; of Shailendra Dania vs. S P Dubey [(2007) 5 SCC 535]; of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra [(2010) 9 SCC 52];, and of Surendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1979 SC 1049). Mr. Jitendra Singh has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to answer the issues involved in the writ petitions.

He has next contended that once the recruitment process had commenced on 29th November 2006, criteria for selection could not have been altered nor the merit list once prepared could have been replaced by a merit list prepared on altogether a different principle. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of K Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 3 SCC 512]; of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11]; and of P Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka. (AIR 1990 SC 405).

He has next submitted that recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the advertisements dated 26th May 2006, 4th August 2006 and 29th November 2006 was part of the same selection process. The posts which could not be filled in pursuant to the 26 th May 2006 advertisement, were advertised on 4th August 2006 and the spill over from 4th August 2006 recruitment process was Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014 16 /18 advertised on 29th November 2006. The Commission or for that matter the State Government, therefore, could not have made departure from the consistent practice of preparing the merit list on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained in aggregate. The appellants have thus been meted hostile discrimination. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Anuj Choudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2013) 6 SCC 384].

Learned advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra has appeared for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.1221 of 2013. He has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He has submitted that in no circumstance the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge can be sustained. He has submitted that the constitutional principle of predictability of legal position requires that a rule/instruction as in this case if operated or implemented in a particular manner, such rule or instruction should be continued to be operated or implemented in that manner alone. He has submitted that in the instant case, the State Government has failed to act in accordance with the aforesaid principle in application of the 1990 Resolution. He has further submitted that the appellants have also been discriminated vis-à-vis the Junior Engineers (Mechanical) recruited pursuant to the said advertisement dated 29th November 2006. He has submitted that the State Government is not consistent in application of the 1990 Instructions not only over the period but also in the matter of recruitment of Junior Engineers (Civil) and Junior Engineers (Mechanical) pursuant to the same common advertisement. He has submitted that recruitment in public employment requires selection of the best amongst available candidates. That is how the Commission had prepared the merit list published in January 2012. The State Government has fallen in grave Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014 17 /18 error in making overnight change in the criteria for selection and that too after the selection process was completed and the merit list was prepared and published. In support of his submission, Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Shailendra Dania vs. S P Dubey [(2007) 5 SCC 535]; of P H Paul Manoj Mandian vs. P Veldurai [(2011) 5 SCC 214]; of Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No.1 [(2012) 10 SCC 1]; of Rohitash Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma [(2013) 11 SCC 451]; of C Channabasaviah vs. State of Mysore & Ors. (AIR 1965 SC 1293); of D G Telecommunication vs. T N Peethambaram [(1986) 4 SCC 348] and; of Bishnu Biswas vs. Union of India [2014 (2) PLJR 394 (SC)].

In the matter of Director General of Telecommunication & Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that minimum pass mark in the examination prescribed under the rule, in absence of the word 'aggregate' in the rule, the prescribed minimum passing marks must mean minimum in each subject as well as minimum in aggregate. It is not in dispute that the competitive examinations conducted by the Commission are governed by the Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990. The said Resolution has specified the minimum qualifying marks that should be obtained by the candidates in each category, i.e. general merit candidates and the reserved category candidates. It is the general rule applied to all examinations conducted by the Commission for recruitment to the posts under the State Government. Although it is a mere instruction, in absence of any statutory enactment or rule governing the filed, the aforesaid instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, will partake the nature of statutory rules. It is also true that the said Patna High Court LPA No.88 of 2014 dt. 10-11-2014 18 /18 Resolution does not specify that the aforesaid qualifying marks prescribed therein shall be obtained in aggregate or in each individual paper/subject. In absence of such specification, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and also as a matter of public policy, must mean the qualifying marks in each subject/paper.

I am also of the opinion that any person appointed on a public post is required to be proficient. A person appointed as Engineer has to be, apart from other qualifications, proficient in engineering. I, as a citizen, will expect an engineer to have sound knowledge of engineering rather than general knowledge. I, as a High Court, will not exercise discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of a person who does not know his subject. It would amount to leaving public projects in unsafe hands and the life of the people at peril.

As we are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge, as the learned Single Judge has considered each issue in extenso, we do not delve into the matter further. The Appeals are devoid of any merit. Appeals are dismissed.

The parties will bear their own costs.

(R.M. Doshit, CJ) Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. I agree.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) mrl U AFR