Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar Raju vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 11 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1212 of 2021
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar Raju, Son of Chandra Mani Prasad, Resident of Near Devi
Sthan, 257/213, Akbarpur Kothi, Langar Toli, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-
Patna, Pin Code-800004.
2. Baby Sarika, Wife of Anuj Prasad Singh, Resident of Near Radha Devi
School, New Area, P.O. Sikanarpur, P.S.-Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur,
Pin Code-842001.
3. Shiv Prakash Kumar, Son of Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Resident of Village and
P.O.-Chandauli, District-Sitamarhi, Pin Code-843316.
4. Purushottam, Son of Late Ramcharana Prasad, Resident of Patel Nagar, P.S.
Islampur, District-Nalanda, Pin Code-801303.
5. Shiv Ranjan Kumar, Son of Sri Surendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village
and P.O.-Rahatpur, P.S. Balia, District-Begusarai, Pin Code-851211
6. Mithilesh Kumar, Son of Ambika Paswan, Resident of Near Middle School,
Gongaura, P.O.-Badarwali, P.S. Gangaura, District-Nalanda, Pin Code-
803110.
7. Vibhash Kumar, Son of Shri Awadh Narayan Mandal, Resident of Village
and Post-Krishnadaspur, P.S.-Budhuchak, District-Bhagalpur, Pin Code-
813222.
8. Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Mahto, Resident of Mohalla-
Mahadeo Path, Ward No. 01, At and P.O.-Rosera, P.S. Rosera, District-
Samastipur, Pin Code-848210.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.
3. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
4. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examinations, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
For the Respondent State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to G.P.-23
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 11-05-2022
Patna High Court CWJC No.1212 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022
A Note-4 to Clause 5 of the Advertisement No. 14/2020
issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission inviting
applications from eligible candidates for appointment against the
posts of Lecturers (Electrical Engineering) in Government
Polytechnics/Government Women Polytechnics within the State of
Bihar has been put to challenge in the present writ application as,
according to the petitioners, the prescription in Note-4 is contrary
to the provisions contained under Bihar Polytechnic Education
Service Rules, 2020. The said note prescribes that the candidates
for interview shall be shortlisted on the basis of written test.
2. An identical Note-4 of paragraph-5 of Advertisements
No. 51/2020, 52/2020 and 54/2020 issued by the Bihar Public
Service Commission for appointment of Assistant Professors in
Government Engineering Colleges was under challenge in
C.W.J.C. No. 7963 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar Singh and Others vs.
The State of Bihar and Others) on the identical ground of the
same being violation of similar provision under the extant Bihar
Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020.
3. The said C.W.J.C. No. 7963 of 2021 has been
dismissed by a judgment and order delivered by the Court today.
4. The reasons discussed in the said judgment for
dismissing the writ petition, in my opinion, apply in toto to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1212 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022
facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly. this
application also deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of any
merit.
5. It is recorded that this writ application was heard
along with C.W.J.C. No. 7963 of 2021 as identical legal issues
were noticed to be involved in both the cases. However, the two
cases have been disposed of by separate judgments, as two
separate sets of Rules apply in these cases,
6. However, in all fairness to Mr. Abhinav Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the
present case, the Court must record that while advancing his
submissions to question the legality of the impugned note, he
relied on following Supreme Court's decisions: -
(1) Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, reported
in (2004) 6 SCC 786.
(2) State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh, reported in
(2003) 11 SCC 559.
(3) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India
(AIR 1985 SC 1351) and
(4) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (AIR
1987 SC 2267).
Patna High Court CWJC No.1212 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022
7. The substance of his submission has been, referring to
the aforesaid Supreme Court's decisions, that a term of
advertisement, which is contrary to the statutory recruitment rules,
is illegal and unsustainable. The said submission, though legally
correct, is of no avail for the petitioners on the same reasoning as
discussed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7963 of 2021 to the effect
that the impugned Note 4 does not violate any statutory provision.
8. This application is thus dismissed.
9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.11.2021
Uploading Date 12.05.2022
Transmission Date N/A
