JAGANATH ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint them on the posts of police constable in the District of Patna pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 1997.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had qualified in the physical test and they had the requisite height, but they were not appointed only on the ground that they had taken training of home-guard from the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that since the petitioners had undergone training of home-guard in the State of Uttar Pradesh, they cannot be debarred in absence of stipulation made in the advertisement. It is also contended that similarly situated persons had approached this (B Court in CWJC No. 6204 of 1998 again in CWJC No. 10435 of 2000 and this Court vide orders, as contained in Annexure-4 series and 7 series directed the authorities to appoint them on the posts of police constable, as they were found eligible irrespective of the fact that they had undergone training of home-guard in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the orders passed by this Court were tested in Letters Patent Appeal and LPA No. 532 of 2002 was dismissed by this Court affirming the orders passed by the learned single-Judge.