The High Court observered the petitioner's candidature for Prison Warder was rejected despite a prior favorable order treating him as a valid candidate. Petitioner invoked contempt jurisdiction alleging affront to the earlier judgment. The court disposed of the writ application with liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1150 of 2018
======================================================
Arjun Roy @ Arjun Kumar Roy, Son of Late Munshi Roy, Resident of Village- Minapur, P.O.- Salmari, P.S.- Balia Balown, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gaurav Govind, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC8 Mr.Harshvardhan Shivsundaram, AC to SC8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
3 11-10-2022
The petitioner's candidature for appointment as Prison Warder has been rejected by Order dated 18.09.2017 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Administration) of Police, Bihar, Patna.
The background of the order is that the petitioner was serving as an enrolled Home Guard and had applied for appointment pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 2013, which was meant for trained Home Guards or Ex-Service men. It was a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1150 of 2018(3) dt.11-10-2022 2/3
limited competitive process of selection wherein he has emerged successful but was not appointed because the Authorities were of the opinion that based on the date of birth, as recorded in his matriculation certificate, his initial enrollment as a Home Guard was at a time when he had not attained majority and, therefore, since the initial enrollment as a Home Guard was not in accordance with law he could not claim to be a valid applicant in the limited selection process. The petitioner in the circumstances approached this Court by filing CWJC No.137 of 2016. After considering the matter in detail, this Court passed an order on 21.06.2017 directing that the petitioner be treated as a valid candidate and to consider his claim for selection, treating him as a valid applicant. The respondent, however, has again passed an order by which the petitioner has been held an invalid candidate for the purpose of selection on the same ground which has been considered and Order favourable to the petitioner's claim passed in CWJC No.137 of 2016.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the Court's expression in his favour on the same issue, submits that the order of the DIG being affront to the judgment of this Court in CWJC No.137 of 2016, he shall be invoking the contempt jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1150 of 2018(3) dt.11-10-2022 3/3
Writ application is disposed of with liberty.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shashank/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature as an affront to the judgment of this Court in the earlier writ petition, warranting invocation of contempt jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWJC No.137 of 2016Followed¶18
Arjun Roy @ Arjun Kumar Roy
The State Of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Inspector General, Prison and Reforms Services
The Deputy Inspector General, Administration
The Additional Secretary-cum-Director Training
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
