KAMLESH DIKSHIT RAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though 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 vs State of Bihar, 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 , 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. 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 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 , 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 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.