PARITOSH KUMAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 17632 of 2017, Mr. Prashant Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 18002 of 2017 and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and Mr. Piyush Lal learned counsel for the Patna High Court in the respective writ petitions and counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioners are applicants to the employment notice bearing No. P.A/1/2017 for the post of Personal Assistant on the vacancies so advertised. Since they have not received their admit cards for the examination to be held on 10.12.2017 that after approaching the Committee constituted by the High Court in this regard, they have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Bindhyachal Singh learned counsel appearing for the High Court in C.W.J.C.No.17632 of 2017 and Mr. Piyush Lal appearing in the second writ petition submit that the claim of these petitioners have been considered and rejected by the Committee so constituted to examine the grievance of the applicants for such appointment inter alia on grounds that they are over age and are not entitled to age relaxation. Learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that they are yet to receive the communication of rejection, argue that the applicants are employed in District Courts viz Jharkhand, Punjab & Uttarakhand and thus being employees of the respective State Courts, they are equally entitled to the relaxation. While petitioner No.1 in C.W.J.C.No.17632 of 2017 is an employee of the Civil court in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner No.2 is an employee of the Civil court at Punjab and the sole petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.18002 of 2017, is an employee of the High Court of Uttarakhand.