Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Adv vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1407 of 2018
===========================================================
Ashok Kumar Advocate, Son of Shyam Nandan Ray, resident of Village - Rampur
Shyamchand, P.S. - Raghopur, District - Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt.
of India, New Delhi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chairman, B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary Cum Examination Controller B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Chairman, U.G.C. Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.
7. The Secretary, UGC Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.
8. The Director, C.B.I. New Delhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 06-03-2018
Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, a practicing
Advocate, has filed this writ petition in public interest and seeks a
mandamus for directing an enquiry by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI, in short) after registering an F.I.R. into various
irregularities said to have been committed by the Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna, in filling up the vacancies of Assistant Professor
in pursuance to Advertisement No. 44 of 2014 and 84 of 2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1407 of 2018 dt.06-03-2018
2/4
It is alleged that reservation roster has not been
followed, merit list has not been prepared properly, candidates with
less marks have been called to the interview, candidates have been
selected who have not even filled up the form and pointing out
various allegations based on newspaper reports and unconfirmed
reports received by the petitioner this writ petition has been filed.
Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General appeared
on report in advance and refused the contentions. That apart, he points
out that process of selection has been challenged by various
candidates and writ petitions are pending before this Court with
regard to the process of selection at the instance of the aggrieved
persons. He further points out that in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath Mukherjee vs. Ramkrishna
Mission Vivekanand Centenary College [(2011) 5 SCC 464] and the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Forum of SC and ST
Parliamentarians vs. ONGC (WPC No. 1698 of 2017) decided on
27.02.2017, a public interest litigation with regard to recruitment matter which is a service dispute is not permissible.
He further argues that based on vague and unspecified allegations made in the writ petition no enquiry by the CBI can be ordered.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner by Patna High Court CWJC No.1407 of 2018 dt.06-03-2018 3/4 referring to certain facts stated in Annexure-1 which is a note prepared and filed without any signature or authentication tried to indicate that various irregularities have been committed in the matter, we are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and based on the manner in which vague allegations are made and enquiry by the CBI cannot be ordered.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Respondents Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571] and thereafter in the case of Puja Pal vs. Union of India [(2016) 4 SCC 160] has laid down the parameters and guidelines based on which investigation can be ordered by an independent agency like CBI. If we analyze the facts of the case and the allegations made therein in the backdrop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Respondents Rights (supra) and Puja Pal (supra) we are of the considered view that no case is made out for enquiry by the agency like CBI. That apart, as informed by the learned Advocate General to us that the question of appointment is already sub-judice at the instance of the aggrieved persons and candidates before various Benches of this Court and when a Public Interest Litigation with regard to service dispute as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath Patna High Court CWJC No.1407 of 2018 dt.06-03-2018 4/4 Mukherjee (supra) is not maintainable, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the aggrieved persons who are candidates and had participated in the selection process shall have the liberty to ventilate their grievance in accordance with law and dismissal of this P.I.L. shall not come in their way in doing so.
The petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) mrl./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 08.03.2018 Transmission Date