Patna High Court
Dr. Gopal Jee Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5547 of 2022
======================================================
Dr. Gopal Jee Rai Son of Ramji Rai, resident of Sant Kabir Road, Banu
Chhapar, Ward no. 08, Navin Colony, Bettiah, West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar,
Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Special Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Vikash
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar,
Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. Bihar Technical Services Commission, 19, Hardinge Road, Government of
Bihar, Patna through its Secretary.
7. The Chairman, Bihar Technical Services Commission, 19 Hardinge Road,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar Technical Services Commission, 19 Hardinge Road,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, SC 12
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, AC to SC 12
For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing that part of the
advertisement no. 04/2020-9/2020 as contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5547 of 2022 dt.09-05-2022
Clause 3 vide which the age limit for appointment has
been fixed by the Bihar Technical Services
Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission)
(ii) For issuance of an order, direction or
writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent
Commission/authorities to consider the age limit as per
Circular dated 23.01.2006 which categorically
stipulated the relaxation of age on the basis of the last
examination conducted.
(iii) For issuance of an order, direction or
appropriate declaration that the commission cannot
decide eligibility criteria other than those prescribed in
the rule.
(iv) Any other order or orders as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner."
3. The aforesaid reliefs cannot be extended to the
petitioner for the reasons that the petitioner has slept over the
matter as he had right to question the Clause No. 3 in
Advertisement No. 4 of 2020 - 9 of 2020. In respect of challenge
to any provision or process of recruitment to any post, it should be
within a reasonable period of time of six months whereas the
present petition is presented in the year 2022.
4. Apex Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy
Appellant vs. State of T.N. reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 held
that for selection/appointment/promotion, candidate must approach
within a reasonable period of six months. Similar view was
Patna High Court CWJC No.5547 of 2022 dt.09-05-2022
expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported
in (2017) 4 SCC 357.
5. Having regard to the fact that petitioner has slept over
the matter for about two years, question of entertaining the present
petition on the ground of delay and laches is not warranted. Hence,
writ petition stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 14.05.2022
Transmission Date
