Patna High Court

Lay Prakash SharmaversusThe Union of India

Decided: 18 June 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RITESH KUMAR

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the matter has already been settled by the Division Bench in LPA No.1285 of 2015.

Summary

The petitioner, Lay Prakash Sharma, sought a direction to be considered for the post of Constable (Technical/Tradesman) advertised on 13 November 2012, alleging that his medical re‑examination record was maliciously destroyed and that he was unfairly denied appointment. He had previously filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.12656 of 2013) which was disposed with directions, and subsequently appealed under the Letters Patent (LPA No.1285 of 2015); the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that he never applied for consideration against a non‑joining post. The petitioner later filed RTI applications for the missing records, but the Central Information Commission held that the records were destroyed and could not be produced. The High Court held that the matter had already been finally decided by the Division Bench and could not be reopened, and therefore dismissed the present writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment despite the earlier dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal and lack of an application for a non‑joining post.
Whether the court can compel the respondent to produce medical/re‑medical records that have been destroyed.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the matter was finally settled by a Division Bench.
Whether the Right to Information Act obliges the authority to furnish records that no longer exist.

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

recruitment
appointment
constable
technical tradesman
medical fitness
Right to Information Act
writ petition
Letters Patent Appeal
merit list
record destruction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8092 of 2026
======================================================
Lay Prakash Sharma S/o Ransigasan Sharma @ Ramsigaram Sharma,
Resident of Village - Tetardih Road, Tetar Dih, P.O. - Hasan Bazar, P.S. - Piro,
District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India Through the Director General of Police, Central Reserve
Police Force, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
3. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector,
Patna.
4. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre,
Muzaffarpur.
5. Dr. Srot Gupta, M.C. Medical Member- TWC, Recruitment Board, C.T.,
(Technical/ Tradesman), at G.C. (CRPF), Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Radhika Raman, Sr. Panel Advocate
: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2026

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) For direction/order to consider the
candidature of petitioner in the
appointment of on the post of
constable Barbar
(Technical/Tradesman) in pursuance
of advertisement dated 13th
November 2012, who appeared in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
2/9

physical test and the written test held
on 24th January 2013 and was
declared successful and during test of
medical board the petitioner was
found unfit but the re-medical test
record was destroyed malafidely by
the authority concern only on defeat
the candidature of the petitioner and
at the time of consideration finally in
L.P.A. No. 1285/2025 dated
21.12.2016. The petitioner's claim to
produce the medical test record
before this Hon'ble Court. The
Hon'ble High Court suggested that
the petitioner have to obtain
information under RTI about the
record of the re-medical test of the
petitioner.
(ii) For direction/order to the respondent
authorities to provide the petitioner
"the required record to merit list, final
merit list re-medical and test
subsisting before the authority
concern for which the authority
concern has declined to provide
information like this " vkids }kjk izkIr
vkosnu i= fnukad 30-04-2018 ds rgr vkius
dsfjiqcy ds foKkiu la0&vk0nks0&21@2022 &
lh,l&LFkk&lkr ds rgr ds flikgh@ckjcj
in ds fyf[kr ijh{kk esa p;u ds mijkar
fu;qfDr fd;s x;s vH;kFkhZ eukst dqekj (jkSy
ua0&ch&3119)] vf[kys”k dqekj Bkdqj (jkSy
ua0&ch&3118)] fofiu dqekj jk; (jkSy
ua0&,&3106)] :is”k dqekj frokjh (jkSy
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
3/9

ua0&,&3102)] fuys”k dqekj (jkSy
ua0&ch&3124) ,oa y; izdk”k “kekZ (jkSy
ua0&,&3110) ds fyf[kr ijh{kk dk mRrj
iqfLrdk dh vfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr miyC/k
djkus gsrq lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e&2005
ds rgr vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa ;g
voxr djk;k tkrk gS fd bl dk;kZy; esa
miyC/k HkrhZ ls lacaf/kr fjdkWMZ o’kZ 2014 rd
dk fofMax vkmV gks pqdk gSA vr% vkids }kjk
ekaxh xbZ tkudkjh miyC/k ugha djk;k tk
ldrk gSA”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.

No. 12656 of 2013, with a prayer for his appointment on the

post of Constable (Technical/Tradesman), pursuant to an

advertisement dated 13.11.2012. The petitioner appeared in the

physical test and the written test held on 24.01.2013 and was

declared successful. During test of medical board, the petitioner

was found unfit. After rejection by the medical board, the

petitioner got himself examined by a Doctor at Sadar Hospital,

Ara on 06.02.2013, wherein the doctor found him to be

medically fit. On that strength, the petitioner filed an appeal

before the D.I.G., Muzaffarpur, who vide letter No. R.II-8/2013

-Estt.6 (RM) dated 23.02.2013 directed the petitioner to appear

before the Review Medical Board on 05.03.2013. The petitioner

was re-examined by the team of doctors and they did not find
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
4/9

any wrong with the petitioner but, he was not declared

successful on account of his position in the merit list. The

petitioner challenged the conduct of the respondent authorities

claiming that he had done fairly well in the written examination

and the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the

claim of the petitioner was completely illegal and not

sustainable in law. In the said case, counter affidavit was filed

by the Union of India, whereby the merit list was brought on

record. The petitioner was found to have obtained 37 marks and

after considering the submissions of the petitioner, the writ

petition was disposed of with an observation that if any person

does not join, certainly the petitioner will have liberty to make

an application for consideration of his case against the vacant

post, if any, and if such an application is filed by the petitioner,

respondent authorities were directed to consider his case in

accordance with law. Not satisfied with order dated 21.01.2015

passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013, the petitioner preferred

Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 1285 of 2015 before this

Hon’ble Court. The said appeal was heard by a Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench

vide its order dated 21.12.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner by observing that it is a categorical stand of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
5/9

respondents that the appellant did not file any application for

being considered against a non-joining post, at any time, before

the respondents, which fact has not been denied by the

appellant. However, despite the same, an order was passed by

the concerned authority in the matter stating that the appellant

could not be appointed even with regard to the said direction.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was

dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed application under

the Right to Information Act and on his application, an order

was passed by the Central Information Commission, whereby it

was decided that on the basis of the statement made by the

respondents that the recruitment related records up to the year

2014 have been wedded out, no direction for furnishing

information can be passed in absence of the records. Even

thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to

Information Act on 18.07.2020 asking for some more

documents and has now filed the present writ petition, with a

prayer to consider the candidature of the petitioner for

appointment as constable (Technical/Tradesman), pursuant to

advertisement dated 13.11.2012, along with some consequential

reliefs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
6/9

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

it is general rule that the documents must be saved in the

department concerned up to ten years, when any legal struggle

is pending/going on in respect of the document concerned. He

submits that in the present case, the petitioner approached

before this Hon’ble Court against the advertisement No. 21 of

2012, then it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to

keep the record related to the recruitment process intact,

however malafidely and erroneously for otherwise purpose, the

same has been weeded out/destroyed by the department

intentionally. He further submits that the petitioner is a bona fide

candidate and he deserves his selection, pursuant to the

advertisement No. 21 of 2012.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Union of India submits that the petitioner had earlier filed

the writ petition, however the same was disposed of with certain

directions and the petitioner, not being satisfied with the order

passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.

No. 12656 of 2013, preferred an appeal bearing LPA No. 1285

of 2015. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner

was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide

order dated 21.12.2016 and even then, the petitioner kept on
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
7/9

filing application under the Right to Information Act for

providing documents, which has already been weeded

out/destroyed in 2014 itself. He further submits that the

selection process in relation to advertisement No. 21 of 2012

has already culminated and persons recommended therein have

also joined. Subsequent thereto, fresh advertisement was also

issued and the same has also culminated in appointment of the

candidates and therefore, the present writ petition does not

deserve any merit.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after

going through the records, it appears that the petitioner had

earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013.

The same was disposed of by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 21.01.2015 with certain

observations. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner

preferred LPA No. 1285 of 2015. The Letters Patent Appeal

preferred by the petitioner was heard on merits and the Hon’ble

Division Bench vide its order dated 21.12.2016, after

considering the categorical stand of the respondent-Union of

India that the petitioner herein did not file any application for

being considered against a non-joining post at any time, before
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
8/9

the respondents and which has not been denied by the petitioner

herein. However, despite the same an order was passed by the

concerned respondents in the matter stating that the appellant

could not be appointed even with regard to the said direction. It

appears that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set at rest

the matter related to the appointment of the petitioner vide order

dated 21.12.2016 passed in LPA No. 1285 of 2015, however the

petitioner kept on filing one petition or the other before the

concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act. The

Central Information Commission vide its order dated

13.05.2020 also disposed of the petition of the petitioner by

holding that the records have been weeded out/destroyed and

therefore, it is not possible to provide any information to the

petitioner. Even then, the petitioner kept on filing petition under

the Right to Information Act for obtaining certain documents

with regard to advertisement No. 21 of 2012, for making out a

case for his appointment, although the process for appointment

has already closed long ago.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ

petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground that the matter with

regard to the petitioner has been set at rest by the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1285 of 2015, upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026
9/9

considering the case of the petitioner on merit and therefore

now, by again filing the present petition, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to re-open the matter, which has already been settled

by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

21.12.2016 passed in LPA No. 1285 of 2015.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.06.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.