PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON SANJEEV KUMAR RAWAT V/S THE BIHAR STATE AND OTHERS

PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioners before this Court are aspirants for the post of District Home Guard in connection with Advertisement No. 1 of 2009. On being aggrieved with Memo No. 259 dated 15.03.2022 issued under the signature of the respondent District Magistrate-cum- Chairman District Selection Committee, Jamui, whereby the claim of the petitioners for their selection to the subjected post came to be turned down; they have preferred the present writ petition.

3. The contention of the petitioners is confined to the limited bound. On account of illegal preparation of merit list on the basis of Block-wise instead of District-wise, the petitioners have been ousted from the zone of consideration. Though the issue came to be settled by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 11645 of 2019 ( Manjay Kumar & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors), wherein this Court has directed the respondents to publish the provisional and final merit list on the District-wise basis and not on Block-wise. The afore noted order came to be affirmed in LPA No. 645 of 2021. The matter also travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 24421 of 2024 which also stood dismissed on 18.10.2024.

4. Referring to the afore noted judgment, it is contended that the claim of the petitioners has never been considered in the right perspective, moreover the identically situated persons, who have approached this Court for identical grievance, their cases have been disposed off with a liberty to approach before the District Magistrate to consider their cases in terms of the decision rendered in the case of CWJC No. 11645 of 2019 duly affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court and settled upto the Apex Court. The petitioners shall also be satisfied if their claims shall be reconsidered by the concerned District Magistrate.

5. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State refuted the contention of the petitioners and submitted that the claims of the petitioners are not identical to those of CWJC No. 11645 of 2019. Moreover, the petitioners appeared in the physical test but could not succeed; though other persons securing lesser marks in other Blocks were held to be successful. It is further contended that out of the sanctioned strength earmarked for the district, 24 remained vacant and decision has been taken to merge the same in subsequent advertisement. The petitioners being aggrieved have earlier filed CWJC No. 24372 of 2019 and the same was disposed of directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and take a final decision. The claim of the petitioners was duly considered but did not find favour.

6. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioners, this Court in order to give a quietus to the litigation deems it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioners to approach before the District Magistrate, Jamui, preferably within a period of four weeks from today along with the necessary orders/documents in support of their claim. In case such representation is filed within the period stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed off by speaking order within a further period of 12 weeks.

7. The writ petition stands disposed off with the liberty aforesaid.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.