IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21218 of 2014 ======================================================

Choudhary Prem Shankar Roy Son of Choudhary Anirudh Roy. Resident of Village P.O.- Batho via Nehra, P.S.- Bahera, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna.

3. Secondary - cum - Legal remembrancer, Deptt. of Law, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District and Sessions Judge cum Chairman, Selection Committee, Darbhanga.

5. The 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Member Selection Committee, Darbhanga.

6. The Registrar Civil Courts cum Member Selection Committee, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sc5- Satyadeo Kumar For the High Court : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 12-02-2026 1. The Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(I) For cancelling the published panel dated 05.09.2014 bearing Memo No. 2777-79/G issued from the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga whereby and whereunder arbitrary selection has been made of the less merit holder candidate for the post of office attendants/peons in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in place of merit holder and sufficient candidates on the said post without facing interview.

(ii) For issuing direction for conducting interview of the petitioner again who has appeared before the interview board on 15.07.2014 but he was not asked any question whereas the petitioner was competent to face that board positively. (iii) For making enquiry by the competent enquiry agency that the selected 50 candidates are attached or not with the members of selection committee & approachful families.

(iv) For other relief/reliefs which is deemed fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by your Lordship.

2. Heard Ms. Nilambari, the Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the respondents.

3. During the course of arguments, the Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the selection process of 2014 has been completed and, pursuant to it, the subsequent selection process is being followed under the Rules, 2017 and not under the Rules, 2009, and therefore, the matter has become infructuous.

4. Considering the submission of the Learned counsel for the respondents that the selection process has been completed and that the aggrieved parties/selected candidates are not parties to the Writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter has become infructuous. Even, passing an order in the absence of the aggrieved parties is not justified.

5. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

Amandeep/-

U