Patna High Court
Vidya Bhushan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.31 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17870 of 2017
======================================================
Vidya Bhushan Singh S/o Late Janakdeo Singh Resident of Village- Saichani,
P.O.- Chainpur, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Region, Bettiah.
4. The Chairman, Selection Board-cum-DIG, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.
6. The Chairman, Police Selection Board-cum-S.P., East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr.Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhat Kr. Verma (AAG 3)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 04-02-2025
Heard Mr. Shravan Kumar, the learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey,
the learned Advocate for the State.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Constable some
times in the year 1992. The selection process was found to be
not in accordance with the rule and, therefore, his services were
Patna High Court L.P.A No.31 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
terminated after 11 years in 2003.
3. The appellant had come before this Court
challenging his termination order, wherein a Bench of this
Court, taking into consideration that he had put in 11 years of
service in the constabulary and that his appointment was not
based on any misrepresentation or fraud, directed that in case
the Selection Board would still be continuing with the process
of selection, then the case of the appellant would be considered
giving age relaxation as also physical fitness relaxation because
of the advancing age of the appellant.
4. The Selection Board considered the case of the
appellant, but did not find him suitable for being taken in
service.
5. The contention of the appellant is that the direction
of this Court was not complied with in respect of relaxation to
be considered regarding the physical fitness of the appellant as
well as the experience gained by him in service for about 11
years.
6. Nonetheless, on the Selection Board having found
him to be unfit, the appellant approached this Court after six
years in 2017. This was the reason for the learned Single Judge
in this instance to refuse to entertain the application of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.31 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
appellant.
7. We are in agreement with the opinion of the learned
Single Judge that notwithstanding the fact that in writ petitions,
the concept of limitation is not to be read in any narrow terms,
but if a person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained
delay and laches, it ought be read against him.
8. Even on merits, we find the case of the appellant
lagging for any consideration at this stage. We have also taken
into account that by this time the appellant would be in his mid-
fifties.
9. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss it.
10. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
closed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sujit/Krishna
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2025
Transmission Date
