Supreme Court of India
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 423
- Decided
- 11 June 2020
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the order exempting the 133 candidates from the physical test was issued under Article 142 in a peculiar background and is not precedent; therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the same exemption and their writ petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners sought appointment as Sub‑Inspectors of Police in Bihar, claiming parity with 133 candidates who had been appointed without undergoing the physical efficiency test. Those 133 candidates had been granted an exemption by the Supreme Court in a specific litigation context under Article 142, and the Court had expressly stated that the order would not be treated as precedent. The petitioners, however, either did not appear for the physical test or failed it in the 2011 selection process. The Court held that the exemption cannot be extended to the petitioners because the earlier order was limited to the 133 candidates and is not binding precedent. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to appointment, and all the writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same exemption from the physical test as the 133 candidates appointed under a prior Supreme Court order.
- Whether the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 granting exemption to the 133 candidates constitutes a binding precedent for subsequent applicants.
- Whether the petitioners, who did not appear for or failed the physical test, can be appointed as Sub‑Inspectors under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Subjects
Service LawAppointmentSub‑InspectorPhysical testArticle 142Article 32PrecedentParityWrit petition
Judgment
656 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 656 [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 227 of 2019)
B JUNE 11, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, M. R. SHAH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Advertisement issued in 2004
for appointment to 1510 posts of Sub-Inspector in the State of Bihar
C
– Several rounds of litigation – Result of select list of 1510+639
(vacancies added later) i.e. 2149 was declared and the appointments
were made – High Court in a writ petition issued further direction
to appoint 67 candidates belonging to most backward category who
were wrongly left out – State appointed those 67 and to retain those
D who were to be displaced decided to appoint 186 more candidates
– Appointment of 186 candidates challenged in High Court – Matter
ultimately came to Supreme Court – 186 candidates were subjected
only to medical fitness test in the process of appointment since they
had already cleared the physical efficiency test in 2006 – Further,
133 candidates who had also cleared the physical efficiency test in
E
2006, were classified into a specific category and placed along
with 186 candidates by Supreme Court and appointed under its
orders by subjecting them only to medical test and not physical test
– Writ petitioners herein claimed appointment in pursuance of
advertisement dtd.28.06.11 for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police
F – Petitioners sought parity with the aforesaid 133 candidates
claiming they were all part of list of 223 original candidates
permitted to participate in selection against 299 posts by order of
Supreme Court – Held: It was made very clear that the order of this
Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates was
passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction
G
u/Art.142 and the same shall not be treated as a precedent – Thus,
no benefit can be claimed of the said order by writ petitioners
especially when otherwise they are not able to satisfy this Court
that when they have either not undertaken the physical test or have
failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as
H
656
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 657
Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage – Petitioners not entitled for A
the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions.
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court made it very clear that order of this
Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates are
passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of B
jurisdiction under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated
as a Precedent. The petitioners are claiming that they should be
extended the same benefit of not being subjected to physical test
as the exemption was granted with regard to 133 candidates.
There is more than one reason for not accepting the claim of the C
petitioner. Firstly, there has been specific order with regard to
133 candidates for not subjecting them to the physical test and
directing their appointment without physical test which this Court
had categorically held to be not treated as Precedent. The order
when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent, no
benefit can be claimed of the said order by the writ petitioner in D
the present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ
petitioners are not able to satisfy this Court that when they have
either not undertaken the physical test or failed in the physical
test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of
Police at this stage. [Paras 16, 17][666-G-H; 667-A-C] E
1.2 The Counter affidavit filed by the Commission
categorically states that for selection against 299 posts, 2192
candidates turned up for selection and only 232 cleared the
physical test. The order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court passed in
C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017 has also noticed the number of the F
candidates who were to subjected to the process of selection for
299 posts which number was mentioned 2479 candidates. From
the order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court, it is further clear that
1035 candidates did not turned up for selection, this Court directed
for them also to be subjected to physical test, thus, there are
large number of candidates who did not take physical test or took G
the physical test and failed. Directing for appointment of all those
candidates which includes the petitioners also who did not take
the physical test or took the physical test and failed shall be an
unending process and there are more than thousand of such
candidates who may claim that although they did not take physical H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A test or failed in physical test in pursuance of selection of 299
posts, they should be appointed they being similarly situated to
133 candidates. [Para 18][667-C-F]
1.3 The Court by order dated 01.11.2018 clearly indicated
that in event the State of Bihar does not accede to the
B representation of applicants claiming similar relief to 133
candidates that shall not give rise to any proceedings in any of
the Courts. The Court is not persuaded to grant the said relief in
these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ
petitions. [Paras 20-21][668-D-E]
C
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
227 of 2019.
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
With
D
W.P. (C) No. 225/2019, 582/2019, 591/2019, 592/2019, 1451/2019,
106/2020,
273/2020, 278/2020, 345/2020, 433/2020, 419/2020 and SLP (C)
No. 4370/2020
E Jayant Bhushan, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Advs., M.M. Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Nandan, Raj Kishor Choudhary,
Shakeel Ahmed, Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Puneet Taneja, Shantanu
Sagar, Kundan Kumar Mishra, Akshat Shrivastava, Amit Pawan, Samir
Ali Khan, Arun K. Sinha, Neeraj Shekhar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of
Constitution of India by the petitioners claiming appointment to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Bihar claiming parity with 133
G candidates who were appointed under Orders of this Court by subjecting
them only to the Medical test and not subjecting them with the Physical
test. Counter Affidavit has been filed in writ petition No.227 of 2019 by
State of Bihar as well as Bihar Staff Selection Commission which writ
petition is being treated as a leading writ petition. The facts and claims
H made by writ petitioners in all these petitions being based on same ground,
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 659
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
it shall be sufficient to refer to pleadings in writ petition No.227 of 2019 A
for deciding all the writ petitions. There has been a checkered history of
litigation with regard to selection to the post of Sub-Inspector conducted
in the State of Bihar.
2. Brief facts and sequence of the events giving rise to the writ
petitions need to be noted first: - B
i. An Advertisement No.704 of 2004 was issued by Bihar
Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as
‘Commission’) for appointment of 1510 posts of Sub-
Inspector in the State of Bihar. The Physical test and
thereafter written examination were part of the process of C
selection. Physical Test in pursuance of 2004 selection was
held in the year 2006 and those selected were permitted to
take written examination in the year 2008. The result was
declared on 30.05.2008.
ii. There were certain mistakes in model answers with regard D
to which writ petitions were filed in the Patna High Court
challenging the result. The Commission appointed an expert
Committee and re-scrutinizes the answer sheets.
consequently, 160 originally selected candidates were
required to be removed. The State Government decided to
retain 160 originally selected candidates also. Consequently, E
639 more vacancies were added to accommodate 160
originally selected candidates and to maintain the roster.
iii. The candidates still unsatisfied regarding correctness of
some answers and increase of vacancies by 639, filed writ
petitions in the High Court and ultimately the matter was F
carried to this Court in C.A.Nos.1240-1241 of 2011 with
connected appeals. This Court noticed that requisition for
appointment of 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police has
been received to the Commission from the State
Government. This Court directed the Commission to hold G
fresh examination for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector and only
those appellants who were writ petitioners before the High
Court or pending before the High Court (Total-223 as per
list given in the Court) are at liberty to appear in the Physical
as well as written examination. The appeals were decided
on 02.02.2011 issuing the above direction to the Commission. H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A iv. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2011 after
considering various IAs filed in the decided appeals
permitted all the applicants who are similarly situated to
those candidates who are eligible to appear in the
examination for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector. It is useful to
quote following portion of the order:-
B
“...By the aforesaid order dated 2nd February, 2011,
we had permitted only 223 candidates to appear in
the examination. But now, after perusing the
applications and hearing the counsel for the parties,
we deem it appropriate to permit all these applicants
C who are similarly situated and also those candidates
who are eligible, to appear in the examination for
299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. Uniform
standard would be made applicable to all the
candidates and all the candidates appearing for the
D above post will have to undergo similar physical and
the written examination.”
v. For filling of 299 posts, advertisement No.704/511 dated
28.06.2011 was issued in pursuance of this Court’s order
dated 02.02.2011. The advertisement provided for selection
E process which consist of: -
a) Physical standards and examination;
b) Written examination.
The candidates declared successful in Physical
F test were required to undertake an Objective type
examination.
vi. As noted above, in pursuance of Selection of 2004, result
of select list of 1510+639 i.e. 2149 was declared and the
appointments were made. The High Court in a writ petition
issued a further direction to appoint 67 candidates belonging
G
to most backward category who were wrongly left out.
The State appointed those 67 and to retain those who were
to be displaced decided to appoint 186 more candidates.
There was challenge to appointment of 186 candidates in
the High Court and the matter ultimately came to this Court
H
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 661
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
where this Court on 15.08.2005 directed to maintain status A
quo.
vii. In separate selection for 299 posts in view of the clarification
dated 28.11.2011, 2479 candidates were required to
undertake the selection process. This Court in C.A. Nos.
2795-2797 of 2017 and other connected matters had passed B
order to proceed with the Physical test vide order dated
05.05.2017. It was brought to the notice of this Court that
only 2192 candidates turned up for selection for Physical
test out of which only 232 qualified and in the process of
selection of 299 posts ultimately only 97 candidates were
C
finally selected. This Court had permitted appointment of
those 97 candidates selected and also 186 candidates whom
the State decided to appoint to accommodate 67 OBC
candidates.
viii. The large number of candidates who had applied in
D
pursuance of advertisement No.511 of 2011 did not appear
for Physical test and most of them who appeared were
declared fail. All the writ petitioners are the candidates who
had applied in pursuance of Advertisement No.511 of 2011
who either did not participate in the Physical test or
participated and failed. This Court on 14.09.2017 in E
C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017 has directed that 1035
candidates who did not turned up for selection be subjected
to Physical test which number also included 133 candidates
if not otherwise included.
ix. Contempt Petitions were filed in C.A.No.2805 of 2017 and F
C.A. Nos.2806-2810 of 2017 which appeals were disposed
of on 14.09.2017 along with C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017.
This Court referred to its order dated 08.05.2017 and took
the view that this Court having carved out and classified
133 candidates into a specific category and placed them
along with 186 candidates, there cannot be any other G
procedure for 133 candidates except the Medical
examination. This Court took the view that 133 candidates
should not be permitted to take another written test and
Physical efficiency test. The said order was passed in
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India and was stated to be not treated as a Precedent.
x. Certain applicants had also filed applications for
impleadment in the Contempt who were permitted to make
representations before the Competent Authority who was
B directed to decide the said representation. 133 candidates
who were referred to in the order of this Court and on
24.10.2018 were not subjected to Physical test and were
given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance
of Advertisement No.511/2011. After appointment of 133
candidates who were not subjected to physical test, the
C petitioners in these writ petitions submitted representation
to the Commission and the Government claiming that they
as well as 133 candidates were all part of list of 223 original
candidates who were permitted to participate in selection
against 299 posts by order of this Court on 02.02.2011, the
D benefit of not undergoing Physical test which was extended
by this Court to 133 candidates should also be extended to
the petitioners and the petitioners should also have been
appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police as 133 candidates have
been appointed. Various representations were given by
petitioners. The representations submitted by the petitioners
E were not acceded to. Hence the petitioners have filed these
writ petitions. In W.P.No.227 of 2019 following is the prayer
made by the writ petitioner: -
“PRAYER
F It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to issue
appointment letters to petitioner in parity with 133 candidates
G who were part of original 223 candidates/petitioners, as directed
by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.02.2011 I Civil
Appeal No.1240-44 of 2011.
(b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to subject
the petitioners to the same test i.e. medical test as has been
H
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 663
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
undergone by 133 candidates, who have been issued A
appointment letters and are now undergoing training.
(c) Pass any further order or directions, which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS B
AS ARE DUTY BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.
Drawn by Filed by
M.M.Singh Rameshwar Prasad Goyal C
Advocate Advocate for the Petitioners
Drawn on: 15.1.2019
D
Filed on: 24.01.2019"
3. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated
that petitioners are not entitled for appointment as Sub-inspector of Police
nor they can claim any parity with 133 candidates who were treated as
Special category by this Court in whose favour order was passed under
Article 142 of Constitution of India specially mentioning that the Order E
of directing for their appointment shall not be treated as Precedent. It
has been further stated that the petitioners either failed in the Physical
test or have not undertaken the Physical test in pursuance of
Advertisement No.511/2011, hence, they have no claim for being
appointed. The exception which was carved out for 133 candidates by F
this Court cannot be claimed by all candidates who could not succeed in
Selection against 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police.
4. The Commission has also filed a counter affidavit where it has
been pleaded that after order of this Court dated 20.04.2017 and
08.05.2017, total 3227 candidates were found eligible to appear in Physical G
test and only 2192 candidates turned for selection. In paragraph 10(G),
following has been pleaded: -
“10.G. That in compliance to the orders dated 20.04.2017
and 08.05.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court total 3227
candidates were found eligible to appear in physical test and H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A 2192 candidates turned up for selection, 232 cleared the
physical test and finally 97 of them cleared the written
examination. It appear that the present Writ Petitioners either
had not participated in the Physical or Written Test and if
they participated then they had not succeeded in the tests
conducted by the Respondents.”
B
5. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior Advocate has led the
arguments on behalf of the petitioner appearing for petitioner in Writ
Petition No.227 of 2017. Shri Bhushan submits that under orders of this
Court dated 02.02.2011 for selection against 299 posts, a list of 223
candidates was given in which list all the writ petitioners in this bunch of
C cases were included as well as 133 candidates who were directed to be
appointed by this Court without undergoing any physical test.
6. It is submitted that 133 candidates had claimed the parity with
186 candidates who were decided to be appointed by State of Bihar
without subjecting to any test, same benefit ought to be extended to the
D petitioners also they being similarly situated to 133 candidates who were
directed to be appointed as against selection for 299 posts of Sub-
Inspector.
7. Shri Bhushan submits that although petitioner did not appear in
the Physical test in pursuance of Advertisement no.511/2011 but posts
E are still available on which they can be appointed. Shri Bhushan submits
that there are still 67 posts vacant on which all the petitioners can be
accommodated.
8. Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocate, appearing for some
of the petitioners adopting the arguments of Shri Bhushan contends that
F when the exemption was granted to 133 candidates since they had cleared
physical test in pursuance of 2004 selection, the petitioners in these
petitions should also be given the same.
9. Shri Chinmay Pratap Sharma, learned counsel, submits that
petitioners were all subjected to physical test in pursuance of 2004
G selection and who want to take benefit which has been extended to 133
candidates of not participating in the physical test.
10. Shri Amit Pawan submits that petitioners belong to same group
in 2011 selection. He submits that some of the petitioners have more
marks than 133 candidates.
H
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 665
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
11. Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra, Shri Anand Nandan and other A
counsel for the petitioners adopted the same argument.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission submits that
order dated 24.10.2018 of this Court was confined to only 133 candidates
and this Court having clearly stated that the order shall not be treated as
precedent, no other person can claim same benefit. He reiterated that B
the petitioners are the candidates who either did not appear in the physical
test in pursuance of 2011 selection or participated and failed. Since their
names were not included in select list of 97 which select list was prepared
after conducting the physical test and the written test.
13. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for C
the parties and have perused the record.
14. All the writ petitioners are claiming appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector in pursuance of Advertisement dated 28.06.2011 for 299
posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Commission has categorically
pleaded that all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are candidates D
who either did not participate in the physical test for the selection against
299 posts or they participated and failed. While hearing Contempt Petition
No.14-18 of 2018 in C.A.Nos.2806-2810 of 2017, this Court with regard
to 133 candidates has made following observations: -
“...After hearing the persuasive arguments of Mr. Shivam E
Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, we find it difficult
to see any contumacious conduct on the part of the
respondents. However, we feel that in the interest of justice
the dispute needs a little clarification so that there can be a
quietus to the long-drawn litigation. At the paragraph 10 of
our judgment dated 14.09.2017, we made it clear that 133 F
candidates shall also form part of the 1035 candidates referred
to in the judgment at paragraph 9. The only dispute now
remains is whether those 133 candidates who had cleared
the physical efficiency test conducted in the year 2006 should
now be subjected to the physical efficiency test, for the G
implementation of our judgment dated 14.09.2017. It is not
in dispute that in respect of selection to the post of sub-
inspectors commenced in the year 2004, in the case of 186
candidates, they were subjected only to medical fitness test in
the process of appointment since they had already cleared
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A the physical efficiency test in the year 2006. Mr. Shivam Singh,
learned counsel submits that this was only in pursuance to
orders passed by the High Court and this Court.
We do not find any justification in taking a different
stand in the case of 133 candidates who also have cleared
B the physical efficiency test in the year 2006. Therefore, at the
time of their process of appointment in the year 2017/2018,
they need only to be subjected to the same test undergone by
186 candidates...”
15. Further in its order dated 24.10.2018, this Court in Contempt
C Petition No.1711 of 2018 in Contempt Petition(C) No.22 of 2018 in
C.A.No.2805 of 2017 passed following order in paragraph 4: -
“4. Therefore, we do not find any justification to reopen the order
and permit the State and the Selection Commission to subject
those 133 candidates to another written test and physical efficiency
D test, which, of course, is the normal procedure. This Court having
carved out and classified 133 candidates into a specific category
and placed them along with 186 candidates, there cannot be any
other procedure than the medical examination. Therefore, to
remove any doubt on this aspect, we make it clear that the only
remaining process to be undergone by the 133 candidates is the
E process to which the 186 candidates were subjected to. The State
and the Selection Commission are directed to complete the process
positively on or before 01.11.2018 and issue the appointment orders
subject, of course, to candidates passing the medical fitness test.
We make it clear that this order and all the earlier orders regarding
F the selection and appointment of the 133 candidates are passed in
the peculiar background of the litigation starting from the
advertisement in the year 2004 and several rounds of litigations
during the past fourteen years, in exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same shall not be
treated as a precedent.”
G
16. This Court made it very clear that order of this Court regarding
selection and appointment of 133 candidates are passed in peculiar
background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 and
the same shall not be treated as a Precedent.
H
NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 667
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
17. The petitioners are claiming that they should be extended the A
same benefit of not being subjected to physical test as the exemption
was granted with regard to 133 candidates. There is more than one
reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner. Firstly, there has
been specific order with regard to 133 candidates for not subjecting
them to the physical test and directing their appointment without physical
B
test which this Court had categorically held to be not treated as Precedent.
The order when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent,
no benefit can be claimed of the said order by the writ petitioner in the
present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ petitioners are
not able to satisfy this Court that when they have either not undertaken
the physical test or failed in the physical test, why they should be given C
appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage.
18. The Counter affidavit filed by the Commission categorically
states that for selection against 299 posts, 2192 candidates turned up for
selection and only 232 cleared the physical test. The order dated
14.09.2017 of this Court passed in C.A.Nos.2795-2797 of 2017 has also D
noticed the number of the candidates who were to subjected to the process
of selection for 299 posts which number was mentioned 2479 candidates.
From the order dated 14.09.2017 of this Court, it is further clear that
1035 candidates did not turned up for selection, this Court directed for
them also to be subjected to physical test, thus, there are large number
of candidates who did not take physical test or took the physical test and E
failed. Directing for appointment of all those candidates which includes
the petitioners also who did not take the physical test or took the physical
test and failed shall be an unending process and there are more than
thousand of such candidates who may claim that although they did not
take physical test or failed in physical test in pursuance of selection of F
299 posts, they should be appointed they being similarly situated to 133
candidates.
19. This Court has further passed an order on 01.11.2018. It is
also relevant to notice that several candidates some of which are
petitioners before us has also filed the impleadment application in G
Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2018 in C.A.No.2805 of 2017 which
application were rejected on 01.11.2018 and in order dated 01.11.2018,
it had although been observed that the applicants are free to make
representation appealing to the good conscience of the State of Bihar
and the State of Bihar is free to consider the same but in event if the
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A representation are rejected, it shall not give rise to any proceeding/appeal
in any of the Courts. Following observations are made in this regard: -
“...Mr. S.Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, and other
counsel appearing for some of the intervenors/applicants,
pray for the same relief which is granted to 133 candidates.
B The said applicants are free to make representations
appealing to the good conscience of the State of Bihar. The
State of Bihar is free to consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case such
representations are made by the intervenors/applicants within
C one month from today, appropriate orders may be passed by
the state on those representations within three months
thereafter. However, we make it clear that even if their
representations are rejected, it will not give rise to any
proceedings/appeal in any of the Courts.”
D 20. The Court thus by order dated 01.11.2018 clearly indicated
that in event the State of Bihar does not accede to the representation of
applicants claiming similar relief to 133 candidates that shall not give rise
to any proceedings in any of the Courts. We are not persuaded to grant
the said relief in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.
E 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that
the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions.
All the writ petitions are dismissed.
Divya Pandey Writ petitions dismissed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service Law"Sign in to search