SUDHESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the challenge is against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3314 of 2006, recorded on 23.3.2006, whereby the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be dismissed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in greater details and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of. We have evaluated the factual profile of the case. We have also considered the submissions, as well as, the merits of the impugned order dispassionately.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal, let there be a short conspectus of important and relevant facts leading to the rise of this appeal. The appellant original writ petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 24.2.2006 contained in memo No. 4/B-6-102/2004-249/Gri.Sa.Ko. published in "Hindustan" Newspaper (Hindi) on 26.2.2006, issued by the respondent State Government. Earlier, there was an advertisement No. 1 of 2004/dated 11.8.2004 for appointment to the post of constable in the State of Bihar. Government, obviously, issued a guideline clarifying specific selection process for completing the recruitment on the basis of the aforesaid advertisement. A committee came to be constituted for the purpose of selection. Initially, physical tests for the candidates were conducted between 3.9.2004 to 26.10.2004 and, thereafter, the result came to be pronounced in respect of successful candidates in physical test, by the respondent authority, namely, Superintendent of Police of different districts of the State of Bihar. Subsequently, the Director General of Police gave order to the Zonal Inspector General of Police for preparation of the merit list of successful candidates. The appellant - original writ petitioner's name came to be included in the list of successful candidates so far as physical test is concerned which was a part of the process of selection as a whole.

(3.) We are concerned in this Letters Patent Appeal with regard to the successful candidates of Darbhanga Zone being about 450, who have been appointed and are working and getting their salary. Among these, 50% appointed candidates were from Homeguard Jawans. It is true that the appellant - original writ petitioner had made an application to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State for appointment of rest of the successful Homeguard Jawans, unsuccessfully. Upon conclusion of the selection procedure, successful candidates, for getting appointment, were waiting for their turn. In the meantime, the impugned order came to be published in the newspaper, as stated above, under which earlier selection procedure came to be cancelled and fresh selection procedure by virtue of the said advertisement recommenced. It means that the earlier selection process undertaken came to be intercepted. It is found from the impugned order of the authority that there were various complaints about malpractices, irregularities, as well as, breach of the selection process criteria which prompted the respondent authority to cancel part of the process earlier initiated and, later on, a fresh advertisement came to be published for restarting the whole process.