Dismissed¶34

Vidya Bhushan Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Feb 2025L.P.A/31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches in writ petitions; belated challenge to Selection Board's finding of unfitness; age relaxation and physical fitness relaxation in police constable re-selection; termination of constable after 11 years' service for irregular selection; Patna High Court Letters Patent Appeal No.31 of 2022 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the concept of limitation is not to be read in narrow terms in writ petitions, a person invoking the jurisdiction who is guilty of unexplained delay and laches must have it read against him; the Division Bench agrees with the learned Single Judge's refusal to entertain the application. ¶32

Vidya Bhushan Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.31 of 2022 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17870 of 2017

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Vidya Bhushan Singh S/o Late Janakdeo Singh Resident of Village- Saichani, P.O.- Chainpur, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Region, Bettiah.

¶10

¶11

¶12

The Chairman, Selection Board-cum-DIG, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶14

The Chairman, Police Selection Board-cum-S.P., East Champaran, Motihari.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr.Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr.Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhat Kr. Verma (AAG 3) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

Date : 04-02-2025

¶21

Heard Mr. Shravan Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, the learned Advocate for the State.

¶22

The appellant was appointed as a Constable some times in the year 1992. The selection process was found to be not in accordance with the rule and, therefore, his services were

¶23

Patna High Court L.P.A No.31 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025 2/3

¶24

terminated after 11 years in 2003.

¶25

The appellant had come before this Court challenging his termination order, wherein a Bench of this Court, taking into consideration that he had put in 11 years of service in the constabulary and that his appointment was not based on any misrepresentation or fraud, directed that in case the Selection Board would still be continuing with the process of selection, then the case of the appellant would be considered giving age relaxation as also physical fitness relaxation because of the advancing age of the appellant.

¶26

The Selection Board considered the case of the appellant, but did not find him suitable for being taken in service.

¶27

The contention of the appellant is that the direction of this Court was not complied with in respect of relaxation to be considered regarding the physical fitness of the appellant as well as the experience gained by him in service for about 11 years.

¶28

Nonetheless, on the Selection Board having found him to be unfit, the appellant approached this Court after six years in 2017. This was the reason for the learned Single Judge in this instance to refuse to entertain the application of the

¶29

Patna High Court L.P.A No.31 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025

¶30

3/3

¶31

appellant.

¶32

We are in agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that notwithstanding the fact that in writ petitions, the concept of limitation is not to be read in any narrow terms, but if a person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches, it ought be read against him.

¶33

Even on merits, we find the case of the appellant lagging for any consideration at this stage. We have also taken into account that by this time the appellant would be in his midfifties.

¶34