Dismissed

Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Nov 2016CWJC/13506/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his rejection for the post of constable (Bihar Police) alleging wrong deprivation despite passing physical test. State contended he fell below minimum cut-off marks. Court found no merit and dismissed the writ application.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed with no merit found in the petitioner's claim of wrong deprivation of the post.

Pramod Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13506 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Pramod Kumar S/O Tri Nath Yadav Resident & P.O- Alouli, P.S- Alouli, Distt- Khagaria.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Bihar Through, The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariate, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

1. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chairman Central Selection Council, New Bailey Road, Computer Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

1. The Secretary Central Selection Council, Bailey Road, Computer, Bhawan, Patna.

¶9

1. The Commandent, Samastipur, Distt- Samastipur. 6. The S.P. Samastipur, District- Samastipur.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Shashi Shekhar Kishore For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate For C.S.B.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vivek Anand Amtritebh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 17-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for the post of constable (Bihar Police) against the advertisement No. 01 of 2004. As per the claim of the petitioner, he qualified in the physical test, but he has wrongly been deprived of the post of constable.

¶13

In the counter affidavit in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph No. (ii) of paragraph No. 5, it has been stated that the

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.13506 of 2013 (3) dt.17-11-2016

¶15

2/2

¶16

petitioner has obtained less than the minimum cut off marks and, as such, he has not been selected so much so that this matter relates to the said advertisement, all the selection has been made and whatever the vacancy is left out, the same will be consumed in another advertisement.

¶17

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶18

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶19

ajaypd./-

¶20

Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinku Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Siya Ram Singh Vs Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd. and Ors.

Dilipan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Abu Arshad Zaman Vs Uco Bank and Ors.

Sri Shyam Nandan Singh @ Ram Pravesh Singh Vs Ram Ratani Devi and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.