Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1009 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18290 of 2010
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Singh son of Lal Bihari Singh resident of Village -
Shankarpur, P.O. - Shankarpur, P.S. - Simari, Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar Military Police, Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police - 21 at
Saharsa.
6. The Commandant Bihar Military Police - 21, Saharsa.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar-cum- Chairman, Bihar Military Police
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, A.C. to Aag3
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)
Date : 29-01-2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the State.
This LPA under Clause 10 of Letters Patent Appeal
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 1009 of 2018 dt.29-01-2021
has been preferred for setting aside the judgment and order
dated 22.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. 18290 of 2010 passed by
learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court whereby writ
petition has been dismissed by learned single judge on ground
of delay and laches .
Briefly stated the facts of the case is that advertisement
was issued being advertisement no.2/2004 for appointment on
the post of constable in BMP 21 which was reserved for Home
Guards. Petitioner was also serving in Home Guard and applied
and was selected against which selection Memo No.4394 dated
30.7.2005 was issued to him. Petitioner was called for
verification of his document on 17.09.2005 in the office of
Commandant, BMP - 21, Saharsha. However, he could not be
appointed as there was difference in date of birth in his Home
Guard certificate and his matriculation certificate.
It is submitted that along with petitioner, there were
other candidates also who were selected but due to difference in
date of birth in Home Guard certificate and matriculation
certificate, they were not appointed against which they
represented and selection Board sought clarification on this
issue from Director General of Police and who clarified by
Memo no.2232 dated 26.4.2008 which was to be followed and
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 1009 of 2018 dt.29-01-2021
after issuance of such clarification, several similarly situated
candidates were appointed on the post of constable in 2008.
Petitioner submitted representation in 2009 and 10 for his
appointment but no steps were taken on his representation and
as such, he filed writ petition being CWJC No.18290 of 2010
for his appointment on the post of constable pursuant to
selection letter issued in the year 2005.
The writ petition was dismissed on ground of delay
and laches as the appointment letter was issued on 30.7.2005
but petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2010 and
the writ petition was taken up in the year 2018. Petitioner did
not take any steps against refusal to accept his appointment due
to difference in date of birth in matriculation certificate and
home guard certificate and when other similarly situated
candidates who pursued their matter before the authorities and
were appointed in year 2008 then the petitioner woke up and
filed his writ petition in the year 2010 and as such, same was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on ground of delay and
laches.
In cases where matter relates to appointment in police
force in which physical fitness and mental alertness is basic
requirement, such right of appointment gets frustrated by
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 1009 of 2018 dt.29-01-2021
passage of time.
After hearing counsel for the appellant as well as
counsel for the State, we are not inclined to interfere in the order
passed by learned Single Judge, accordingly, the LPA is
dismissed.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.01.2021
Transmission Date NA
