SANJAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 5 despite having filed counter affidavit.

(2.) AN advertisement was published for appointment of District Accounts manager in the District Health Society, Saharsa under the aegis of the State Health Society. The vacancy was solitary. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 were applicants amongst others. In pursuance of the process of selection both the petitioner and respondent no.5 were selected after process of written examination, computer test and interview. The respondent no. 5 was empanelled at serial no. 1 of the panel while the petitioner was at serial no. 4.

(3.) THE entire thrust of the writ petition was primarily that the selection of respondent no. 5 was vitiated inasmuch as his father, respondent no. 6. was a member of the Interview Panel thus according favorable treatment to the said respondent. That the petitioner in his opinion was better suited, more eligible and competent for appointment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledged from the original official records which had been submitted that he finds it difficult to demonstrate that the respondent no. 6 was a member of the interview panel and had participated during the selection of respondent no. 5. The counter affidavit on behalf of the official respondent also quite apart from respondents 5 and 6 themselves, have all specifically denied this aspect. That puts this aspect of the matter at rest.