Patna High Court
Manorma vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14027 of 2019
======================================================
Manorma W/o Braj Bhushan Pandey Resident of Mohalla Chanakya Vihar
Colony,Brahampur,Jaganpura, PS Ram Krishna Nagar,Dist.patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar,
Patna
2. The Director In-Chief, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna
3. Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Bihar,Patna through its Secretary, Bihar,
Patna
4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna
5. The Civil Surgeon cum-Chief Medical Officer, Cum-Member Secretary,
Dist. Health Society, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14414 of 2019
======================================================
1. Renu Kumari Wife of Mani Kumar Mishra, Resident of Mohalla - Gobar
Shahi @ Gobardhanpur, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Suman Kumar, Wife of Umesh Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Chintamanpur
Babu Tola, P.s.- Pipara, District- East Champaran.
3. Neelam Kumari, Wife of Madan Kumar, Resident of Mohalla - Dighwara,
P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran.
4. Fultana Devi @ Fultma Kumari, Wife of Achelal Ram, Resident of Itawah,
P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of health, Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Director in-Chief, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna.
3. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14027 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D.Yadav, AAG-9
Patna High Court CWJC No.14027 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
2/6
Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG-9
For the Commission : Md. Aslam Ansari, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14414 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2025
Heard the parties.
2. Considering the identical nature of grievance raised
in both the writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, they
are being heard together and disposed off by this common order.
3. The petitioners, aggrieved with the order passed by
the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission wherein
against the Advertisement No. 03010216, candidature of 32
candidates with (*) mark and 25 candidates with (#) mark stood
cancelled. The impugned order further declared that the
candidature of those candidates with (*) mark has been
cancelled for violating the terms of Clause (ii) of the
advertisement and further directed that the candidates with (#)
mark will be present with all their certificates in the
Commission Office and after verification, the candidature of
such candidates will be decided.
4. It is the admitted fact that the petitioners have
applied for the post of ANM in terms of Advertisement No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14027 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
3/6
03010216 published by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission
(hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") and on being
found eligible, the petitioners were called upon to participate in
the interview held by the Commission.
5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared along
with all the certificates, including the experience certificate,
required in terms of the advertisement. After the finalization of
interview process, the respondent Commission published the list
of the recommended candidates for the post of ANM. The list,
aforenoted, clearly demonstrates the petitioners to be successful
candidates and their names appeared in the list of recommended
candidates. However, at the bottom of the list, in the noting part
it was mentioned that against the roll number containing (*)
mark, the result has been withheld due to SIT case.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
the matter was enquired and it transpired that the investigation
with respect to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of 2017 has been
commenced on account of discovery of the name of various
candidates in the mobile of the Secretary of the Commission,
which led to submission of the charge-sheet bearing no. 46/2017
on 03.05.2017. The charge-sheet brought on record reflects that
it has been submitted against 40 named accused persons, but the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14027 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
4/6
names of both the petitioners did not find figure therein, nor the
petitioners were made accused subsequent thereto.
7. Referring to the averments made in the writ
petition, it is further contended that identical issue had come up
for consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 24228 of 2018,
which came to be allowed with a direction to the respondent
Commission to consider the candidature of the petitioners and
after verification, recommendation of the said Saroj Kumari,
was made by the Commission leading to her appointment. In the
aforesaid premise, learned Advocate thus contended that the
claim of the petitioners are exactly identical to that of Saroj
Kumari, whose case was disposed off by a Bench of this Court
in CWJC No. 24228 of 2018. The ends of justice would be met,
if the case of the petitioners be also disposed off in the identical
terms with the identical direction.
8. Learned Advocate for the Staff Selection
Commission as well as the State drawing the attention of this
Court to Annexure-C to the counter affidavit has contended that
there was a clear stipulation that in case the candidates are
found involved in influencing the authorities or giving false
information, their candidature may be cancelled. It is further
contended that the names of the petitioners have also been
Patna High Court CWJC No.14027 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
5/6
shown along with other candidates, whose roll numbers were
found in the mobile of the Secretary of the Commission and, as
such, their complicity in influencing the authority concerned
cannot be denied.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and
taking note of the stand of the commission, which did not
specifically controvert the submission of the petitioners that
there is no SIT case pending against the petitioners, this Court in
an identical case in CWJC No. 1832 of 2020 has been pleased to
direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the candidature of
the petitioners in similar terms of the order of this Court dated
06.08.2019
passed in CWJC No. 24228 of 2018.
10. On being found the identical grievance based on
identical facts, this writ petition also stands disposed off with
similar direction, as noted hereinabove. If the cases of the
petitioners also find identical to that of Saroj Kumari, whose
name has been recommended for appointment, similar treatment
must be accorded to the petitioners also.
11. The entire exercise must be completed preferably
within a period of twelve weeks', from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14027 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
12. Both the writ petitions stand allowed with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
