SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Pat) 1732

2012 (1) PLJR 385
PATNA HIGH COURT
A.M. Doshit, CJ & Birendra Pd. Verma, JJ.
Ashutosh Kumar Roy son of late Anand Mohan Roy, Rio House No. 159/F, Sri Krishna Puri, P.S.-Sri Krishna Puri, P.O.-G. P.O., District- Patna (Bihar). .... Petitioner
vs.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
CWJC No. 12507 of 2011
Decided On: 18.8.2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Roy (In person).
For the State Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Mr. Deepak Kumar.
For the BPSC Mr. Sanjay Pandey.
For the High Court: Mr. Lalit Kishore.

The principle of res judicata and locus standi were central to the court's decision.

Headnote:

Res Judicata - Selection of Munsifs - 24th Bihar Judicial Service - Article 226 - 24th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination - Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2002)10 SCC 549], Jyoti Kumar Tripathi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [1995(1) PLJR 483], Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010(1) PLJR 734]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the selection of Munsifs pursuant to the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination and the abolition of 50 posts of Munsif to create 40 posts of Sub-Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, citing the principle of res judicata and stating that the petitioner's claim was stale. It also held that the petitioner had no right to interfere in the abolition or creation of posts in the State Judicial Service.

Issues: The issues included the selection process for Munsifs, the alteration of vacancy positions, and the abolition of Munsif posts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata and that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the abolition or creation of posts in the State Judicial Service.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine, and the petitioner was required to pay exemplary costs for abusing the process of law.

Order

(Per: Hon'ble the Chief Justice)

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Ashutosh Kumar Roy, an Advocate by profession.

2. The matter at dispute is the selection of Munsifs pursuant to the 24th Bihar Judicial Service .Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). Pursuant to the advertisement published on 3rd September, 1990; after competitive examination and the interview, a merit list was prepared and appointments were made in 1994.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is peculiar. The petitioner claims that as on 31st December, 1994, 327 vacancies in the cadre of Munsif were available; the Commission was, therefore, obliged to prepare a select list of 327 candidates and to recommend 327. candidates for appointment as Munsif. The second prong of the grievance is in respect of abolition of 50 posts of Munsif to create 40 posts of Sub-Judge.

4. Under the aforesaid advertisement published on 3rd September, 1990, the Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination for 7 vacancies. The advertisement specifically mentioned that there may be alteration in the vacancy position. After holding competitive examination, a notice was published on 7th October, 1991 indicating that the recruitment would be made for 245 existing vacancies. The, notice also indicated the extent of reservation for various categories. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the examination was conducted, interview was held, select list was prepared and appointments were made. Evidently, the petitioner was not selected for appointment as Munsif.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 2193 of 1995 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said petition was dismissed on 19th May, 1995 on the ground that the petition raised disputed questions of fact. One more writ petition, being CWJC No. 5511 of 1994, was filed by one Rajesh Kumar Jha & others in the same subject matter. The present petitioner also joined in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court (Coram: Shiva Kirti Singh, J. and Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) on 6th February, 2006. The challenge to the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court failed. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15184 of 2006 was dismissed in limine.

6. Now, after five years the petitioner has raked up the same issue again to challenge the filling up of 245 vacancies against 327 vacancies available as on 31st December, 1994 and the abolition of 50 posts of Munsif.

7. The petitioner Ashutosh Kumar Roy has appeared in person. He has submitted that the advertisement published by the Commission categorically specified that the vacancy position may change. As the merit list was prepared in 1994, the vacancy as on 31st December, 1994 ought to have been filled up by operating the merit list of the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination. He has also submitted that pursuant to th8 23rd Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, the vacancies as on the last date of the interview were filled up on the basis of the result of the said examination; the same treatment ought to have been given in respect of the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination. He has also challenged the action of the State Government in abolishing 50 posts of Munsif. He has submitted that all along no Court has considered the petitioner's grievance in respect of the abolition of 50 posts of Munsif. .

8. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2002)10 SCC 549] and of this Court in the matters of Jyoti Kumar Tripathi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [1995(1) PLJR 483] and of Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010(1) PLJR 734].

9. The petition is contested by the respondents. Learned Addit












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top