This judgment dismisses a writ petition by candidates challenging the non-appointment of Sub-Inspectors. The Court held the petition hopelessly barred by limitation, delay, and laches, relying on a 2016 Supreme Court precedent regarding judicial jurisdiction under Article 226.
Petition dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation, delay and laches.
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.8764 of 2021
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md.Nadim Seraj (Gp5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8764 of 2021 dt.15-02-2022 2/4
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 704/2004 in view of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in C.A. No. 1240-41/2011 which was disposed off vide order dated 02.02.2011 with direction to the respondent organization to hold fresh examination for 299 posts with condition that those persons who were petitioners before Hon’ble High Court Patna would be given liberty to appear in Examination.
(ii) For issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners on the post of Sub Inspector as similarly situated 133 candidates have already joined.
(iii) To direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners on the post of Sub-Inspector as several other candidates who have obtained less marks than the petitioners have already been appointed.
(iv) And/Or grant for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to in course of hearing of this writ application.”
post of Sub-inspector pursuant to Advertisement No. 704/2004. Petitioners are relying on Apex Court’s decision passed in C.A.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8764 of 2021 dt.15-02-2022 3/4
No. 1240-41 of 2011 decided on 02.02.2011 in which petitioners have sought for a direction to hold fresh examination for 299 posts and sought for appearance in the examination. The aforesaid relief is hopelessly barred by limitation, delay and laches in so far as petitioners are concerned. Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. Zalpuri reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 at para 20 held as under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 if dutybound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
Apex Court’s decision is writ petition under Article 226 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8764 of 2021 dt.15-02-2022 4/4
Constitution is required to be examined unexplained delay and laches. On this count, present petition stands dismissed that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, delay and laches.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 24.02.2022 Transmission Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking appointment as Sub-Inspector is barred by limitation, delay, and laches given a prior Supreme Court order from 2011.
Whether the petitioners can claim status of appointees where similarly situated candidates were appointed after them despite lower marks.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. ZalpuriReferred¶33
C.A. No. 1240-41 of 2011
Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. ZalpuriRelied on¶34
AIR 2016 SC 3006 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶35
City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kundan Singh and Others
The State of Bihar through the Principal Department of Home, Government of Bihar
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
