Jaganath Roy and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Jaganath Roy and ors. vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Nov 22, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/129660

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/129660
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Narayan Roy, J.
Decided On: Nov 22, 2004
Case Number: CWJC No. 4819 of 2001
Subject: ;Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service law - Appointment--To the post of police constable--Petitioners qualified in physical test but not appointed because they had taken training of Home-guard from the State of Uttar Pradesh--Court had directed authorities to appoint similarly situated persons in earlier case-Representation had been filed by pet...

Key legal issue: ;Service
Acts & sections: Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jaganath Roy and ors.

Advocate Teg Bahadur Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate JC to SC-9

Legal References

Acts: Service Law

Excerpt

service law - appointment--to the post of police constable--petitioners qualified in physical test but not appointed because they had taken training of home-guard from the state of uttar pradesh--court had directed authorities to appoint similarly situated persons in earlier case-representation had been filed by petitioners before concerned authority--direction issued to consider and dispose of the matter in the light of order passed by court in earlier case. - .....of home-guard from the state of uttar pradesh. it is further submitted that since the petitioners had undergone training of home-guard in the state of uttar pradesh, they cannot be debarred in absence of stipulation made in the advertisement. it is also contended that similarly situated persons had approached this (b court in cwjc no. 6204 of 1998 again in cwjc no. 10435 of 2000 and this court vide orders, as contained in annexure-4 series and 7 series directed the authorities to appoint them on the posts of police constable, as they were found eligible irrespective of the fact that they had undergone training of home-guard in the state of uttar pradesh, and the orders passed by this court were tested in letters patent appeal and lpa no. 532 of 2002 was dismissed by this court affirming the orders passed by the learned single-judge.4. no counter-affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondents. however, it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners that the writ petitioners have filed their representations before the deputy inspector general of police, central range, patna, respondent no. 4, as contained in annexure-5 series, but the same have not yet been disposed of.5. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 4, deputy inspector general of police, central range, patna, is directed to consider and dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners in light of the orders passed by this court, as referred to above, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.6. with the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.

Full Judgment

Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint them on the posts of police constable in the District of Patna pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 1997.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had qualified in the physical test and they had the requisite height, but they were not appointed only on the ground that they had taken training of home-guard from the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that since the petitioners had undergone training of home-guard in the State of Uttar Pradesh, they cannot be debarred in absence of stipulation made in the advertisement. It is also contended that similarly situated persons had approached this (B Court in CWJC No. 6204 of 1998 again in CWJC No. 10435 of 2000 and this Court vide orders, as contained in Annexure-4 series and 7 series directed the authorities to appoint them on the posts of police constable, as they were found eligible irrespective of the fact that they had undergone training of home-guard in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the orders passed by this Court were tested in Letters Patent Appeal and LPA No. 532 of 2002 was dismissed by this Court affirming the orders passed by the learned single-Judge.

4. No counter-affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondents. However, it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners that the writ petitioners have filed their representations before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure-5 series, but the same have not yet been disposed of.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 4, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, is directed to consider and dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners in light of the orders passed by this Court, as referred to above, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

6. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2004 Same Parties Jaganath Roy and ors. vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Service Same Judge Narayan Roy, J. Acts & Sections Service Law

;Service