Patna High Court
Rustam Ali vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.542 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18963 of 2021
======================================================
1. Rustam Ali, Son of Saudagar Ali, Resident of Village- Baranaiya Bisa, P.S.-
Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj.
2. Bhirgunath Manjhi, Son of Deo Narayan Manjhi, Resident of Village
Karmaini Mohaff, P.S. Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj.
3. Lalan Kumar Rajak @ Lalan Baitha, Son of Shivjee Rajak, resident of
Village- Parasa, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.
4. Sugriv Ram, Son of Moti Ram, Resident of Village- Khaoratia, P.S.-
Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. 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 : 20-01-2025
Re.- I.A. No. 02 of 2024
The learned Advocate for the
appellants/applicants presses I.A. No. 02 of 2024 for
condoning the delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.542 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
2/5
2. For the reasons stated in the application,
the delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 02 of 2024 stands allowed.
Re.- L.P.A No. 542 of 2023
4. We have heard Mr. Amir Alam, the learned
Advocate for the appellants and Sanjay Kumar
Ghosarvey, the learned Advocate for the State.
5. The order under challenge is dated
22.02.2023
by which the claim of the
respondent/petitioners for being considered for
appointment on Class-III post in the District of Gopalganj
against Advertisement No. 51 of 1998 was dismissed and
they were imposed with a cost of Rs. 5000/- for not
bringing the orders passed by the Supreme Court on the
basis of which they rested their claims.
6. It appears from the records that against the
Advertisement No. 51 of 1998, the respondent/writ
petitioners and others had applied for being appointed on
Class-III post in the District of Gopalganj. However,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.542 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
during the process of recruitment and selection, 60
vacancies notified were reduced to 14, keeping the other
vacant posts for adjustment of employees who would be
appointed on compassionate grounds.
7. The matter travelled to the High Court
where the learned Single Judge, way back in the year
2012, commanded the Collector, Gopalganj to seek roster
point from the head of the regional offices concerned with
regard to the vacancies of different regional offices and
make necessary recommendation for appointment of
those applicants.
8. The State preferred an appeal against the
aforenoted order and in appeal, it was found that those
applicants had not been successful in the written
examination.
9. Unfazed, the aforenoted applicants
approached the Supreme Court, wherein as a one-time
measure and on the concession made by the State,
eleven of the applicants were appointed. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.542 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
respondent/petitioners herein were not the applicants
before the Supreme Court. They claim to be considered
only on the ground that those eleven of the applicants,
who had moved the Supreme Court, were given
appointment as a one-time measure.
10. The learned Single Judge was particularly
peeved by the fact that every time reference was made to
the orders of the Supreme Court but those orders were
never placed when the matter was argued. It was only
later that those orders were placed before the learned
Single Judge.
11. Be that as it may, we find that the learned
Single Judge is absolutely correct in holding that only
because the 11 of such applicants against the
Advertisement of 1998 were taken in service as a one-
time measure, that could not be taken as an order in rem
in favour of all such applicants who had applied for being
considered for the post against Advertisement No. 51 of
1998.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.542 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
12. Even otherwise, the claim is absolutely
stale.
13. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss
the same. However, we deem it appropriate to waive the
fine of Rs. 5000/- which has been saddled on the
appellants by the order of the learned Single Judge and
we accordingly do so.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Harsh/ Rajesh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.01.2025
Transmission Date
