IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.998 of 2025

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2372 of 2023

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

1.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna

2.The Secretary, Home Department Government of Bihar, Patna

3.The Director General of Police Government of Bihar, Patna

4.The Inspector General, Headquarter Patna, Bihar

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.Santosh Kumar Son of Lakshmikant Prasad Resident of villlage-

Damodarpur Chakia, Police Station- Pipra, Distarict- East Champaran

2.Raj Kumar Singh Son of Rajendra Singh Resident of village- Ameth, Police

Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur

3.Nityanand Prasad Son of Munni Ram Resident of village- Ameth, Police

Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur

4.Pritam Ranjan @ Pratim Ranjan Son of Mahesh Prasad Verma Resident of

Mohalla- Sitarampur, Police Station- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur

5.Bijendra Kumar Son of Ram Narayan Ram Resident of village- Nathopur,

Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur

6.Pradeep Kumar Son of Radhe Shyam Gupta Resident of village- Karhari,

Police Station- Karaghar, District- Rohtas

7.Durga Prasad Pal Son of Sheo Gahan Pal Resident of village- Lalapur,

Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur

8.Sunil Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of village- Tilkamanjhi

Hat Jagdishpur Bhagpur, Police Station- Tilkamanjhi, District-Bhagalpur

9.Jitendra Kumar Son of Ashok Paswan Resident of Mohalla- Jawaripur Jail

Road, Police Station- Tilkamanjhi, District-Bhagalpur

10.Arun Kumar Tiwari Son of Shalik Ram Tiwari Resident of village- Kenduni,

Police Station- Magadh Medical, District- Gaya

11.Pramod Kumar Son of Suraj Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Nawagarhi Near

Old Jain Temple, Police Station- Vishnupad, District- Gaya

12.Mungee Kumar Son of Radhe Dhyam Singh Resident of village- Parsar,

Police Station- Karakat Gorari, District- Rohtas

13.Sanjay Kumar Karan Son of Rajniti Prasad Yadav Resident of village-

Labhgaon, Police Station- Khagaria, District- Khagaria

14.Asgar Nadeem Son of Raza Karim Resident of village- Daniyalpur, Police

Station- Tegra, District- Begusarai

15.Sanjiv Kumar Sinha Son of Devendra Prasad Resident of village- Kaswa,

Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai

16.Niraj Kumar Son of Pankaj Prasad Singh Resident of village- Ward No. 20,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

2/42

Naukhutti, Madhurapur, Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai

17.Ashok Kumar Pathak Son of Rajkumar Pathak Resident of village-

Asnouliya, Police Station- Pandu, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand

18.Narad Kumar Yadav Son of Indradev yadav Resident of village- Bhildiha,

Police Station- Manatu, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand

19.Bir Bhawani Son of Bhagwan Singh Resident of village- S.P. Kothi Marg,

Abadganj, Police Station- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand

20.Mukesh Kumar Son of Ramjee Choudhary Resident of village- Ramnagar

Math, Police Station- Khagaria, District- Khagaria

21.Manoj Kumar Son of Awedesh Singh Resident of village- Singhora, Police

Station- Bazirganj, District- Gaya

22.The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary Bailey Road,

P.O.- Veterinary college Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna- 14

23.The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road P.O.-

Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14

... ... Respondent/s

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

with

Letters Patent Appeal No. 988 of 2025

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2639 of 2023

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

1.The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary Bailey Road,

PO Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna 14.

2.The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road, PO

Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna 14.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.Niranjan Kumar Singh Son of Surendra Singh, Resident of Village- Kanhai

Bigha, Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

2.Kundan Gautam, Son of Sri Ved Prakash Upadhyay, Resident of Village-

Rampur Kalan, Police Station- Khaira, District- Saran.

3.Ganesh Kumar, Son of Shri Sitaram Munshi, Resident of Village- Yogipur

More Hilsa, Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

4.Vijay Kumar, Son of Jai Prakash Prasad, Resident of Village- Hilsa

( Kalishthan Sagar Sweet House), Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

5.Raj Kishor Kumar, Son of Shri Ishwari Lal, Resident of Mohalla- Murarpur,

Police Station- Laheri, District- Nalanda.

6.Ranjeet Ranjan Kumar, Son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village-

Chhapra, Police Station- Town Kachahari Station Road, District- Chapra.

7.Prabhat Kumar, Son of Suryabansh Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Bahadurpur

Housing Colony Bhoothnath Road, Police Station- Agam Kuan, District-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

3/42

Patna.

8.Pawan Kumar, Son of Shri Deo Sharan Prasad, Resident of Village-

Paharapura, Police Station- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda.

9.Pritesh Narayan Singh, Son of Vishwadeo Narayan Singh, Resident of

Village- Krishnapuri Nandlal Tola, Police Station- Krishnapuri, District-

Chapra.

10.Saqul Jamal Khan, Son of Taiyab Hussain Khan, Resident of Village-

Benipur, Police Station- Benipur, District- Darbhanga.

11.Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Raj Narayan Singh, Resident of

Village- Bikrampur, Police Station- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur.

12.Manish Kumar, Son of Bharat Panday, Resident of Village- Kaushik Nagar,

Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

13.Rajeev Kumar, Son of Mithilesh Sharma, Resident of Village- Bajrang Bagh

Hilsa, Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

14.Uma Shankar, Son of Mithilesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Kundwapur, Police Station- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.

15.Akhilesh Kumar, Son of Late Arjun Prasad, Resident of Village-

Dayamchak, Police Station- Sare, District- Nalanda.

16.Prince Ranjan, Son of Ram Pravesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Chhota Telpa, Police Station- Town Thana, District- Chapra.

17.Kundan Kumar Singh, Son of Lakshman Singh, Resident of Village- Sattar,

Police Station- Nabinnagar, District- Aurangabad.

18.Mukesh Kumar Singh, Son of Lakshman Singh, Resident of Village- Sattar,

Police Station- Nabinnagar, District- Aurangabad.

19.Bishnu Shankar Sharma, Son of Trideo Thakur, Resident of Village- Nonaur,

Police Station- Sahar, District- Bhojpur.

20.Mainuddin Ali, Son of Md. Hasnain, Resident of Village- Chhotpur, Police

Station- Siwan Mufassil, District- Siwan.

21.Bipin Kumar, Son of Ram Raja Thakur, Resident of Village- Bagauchha,

Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Siwan.

22.Raj Narayan Baitha, Son of Sheojee Baitha, Resident of Village- Chhitauli,

Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

23.Amit Kumar, Son of Rabindra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Surajpur,

Police Station- Surajpur, District- Nalanda.

24.Rup Narayan, Son of Vidya Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village- Hussey

Chhapra Nai Basti Chapra, Police Station- Town Thana, District- Saran.

25.Pranav Bihari, Son of Badri Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village- Kadawara,

Police Station- Belhar, District- Banka.

26.Barun Kumar Tiwari, Son of Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Resident of Village-

Basdila, Police Station- Kopa, District- Saran.

27.Vishal Kumar, Son of Anant Prasad, Resident of Village- Nai Sadak Chowk,

Police Station- Patna City, District- Patna.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

4/42

28.Ranjeet Ranjan Upadhyay, Son of Rangnath Upadhyay, Resident of Village-

Rauja, Police Station- Town Thana, District- Saran.

29.Hare Ram Prasad Singh, Son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Asahani, Police Station- Rasulpur, District- Chapra.

30.Rakesh Ranjan Raj, Son of Ram Janam Prasad, Resident of Village- Mouna

Koiri Tola, Police Station- Town Thana, District- Chapra.

31.Mukesh Kumar, Son of Mohan Kumar Amwast, Resident of Village- P and

T. Colony Kidwaipuri, Police Station- Kidwaipuri, District- Patna.

32.Sangita Kumari, Daughter of Shyam Sundar Singh, Resident of Village- Tari

Near Tari Pul, Police Station- Tari Mufassil, District- Chapra.

33.Gopal Kumar, Son of Surendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Raghunanthpur, Police Station- Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai.

34.Ravi Bhushan Verma, Son of Paras Nath Verma, Resident of Village-

Bhawanipur Zirat Warsn No. 20, Police Station- Motihari Town, District-

East Champaran.

35.Rita Kumari, Wife of Sri Janak Dev Sharma, Resident of Village- Basha,

Police Station- Raja Patti, District- Gopalganj.

36.Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Kailash Pati Prasad Karan, Resident of Village-

Madhopur, Police Station- Birauli, District- Samastipur.

37.Sanjiv Kumar, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Padampura, Police Station- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.

38.Pankaj Kumar Vidyarthi, Son of Bhola Pandit, Resident of Village- Ganjpar,

Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

39.Chandra Prakash Narayan, Son of Satyendra Singh, Resident of Village-

Awadhpuri Road No-4, Police Station- Nawada, District- Bhojpur.

40.Krishna Kumar Singh, Son of Uma Shankar Singh, Resident of Village-

Bhelai, Police Station- Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur.

41.Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Son of Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Resident of Village-

Raxa Rahimpur, Police Station- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

42.Ajeet Kumar, Son of Kamla Singh, Resident of Village- Chainpura, Police

Station- Naubatpur, District- Patna.

43.Himanshu Kumar, Son of Raj Kishore Tiwari, Resident of Village-

Raghunathpur Near Sarita Sadan, Police Station- Motihari, District- East

Champaran.

44.Satyendra Kumar Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh, Resident of Village-

Pandey Patty, Police Station-Pandey Patty, District- Buxar.

45.Jay Prakash Choudhary, Son of Raghunath Choudhary, Resident of Village-

Kudurha, Police Station- Kudurha, District- Buxar

46.Rajendra Prasad, Son of Sheo Bihari Singh, Resident of Village- Nandlal

Kedua, Police Station- Laxmipur Kedua, District- Bhojpur.

47.Binod Kumar Singh, Son of Birendra Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village-

Bhelai, Police Station- Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur.

48.Chandra Shekhar Kumar Ray, Son of Janardan Ray, Resident of Village-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

5/42

Dianman Arak, Police Station- Arak, District- Buxar.

49.Shashi Ranjan, Son of Ram Kripal Singh Arwal, Resident of Village- Kinjer,

Police Station- Kinjer, District- Arwal.

50.Anil Kumar, Son of Ramji Prasad, Resident of Village- Tarounchi, Police

Station- Gurua, District- Gaya.

51.Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Ravindra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Gidha, Police Station- Kailwar, District- Bhojpur.

52.Ajit Kumar Singh, Son of Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village- Baraura,

Police Station- Shreepur, District- Bhojpur.

53.Umesh Kumar Singh, Son of Bashisth Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-

Kamriaon, Police Station- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur.

54.Hari Shankar Rai, Son of Kamla Rai, Resident of Village- Bhargsara, Police

Station- Biniya, District- Bhojpur.

55.Shambhu Nath Rana, Son of Sheojee Ram, Resident of Village- Kamarioan,

Police Station- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur.

56.Sanjay Kumar Paswan, Son of Ramjee Paswan, Resident of Village- Belaon,

Police Station- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.

57.Nagendra Kumar, Son of Ramashray Singh, Resident of Village- Sondhi,

Police Station- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya.

58.Manoranjan Pandey, Son of Narendra Deo Pandey, Resident of Mohalla-

House No- 427 LCC Building, Police Station- Rampur, District- Gaya.

59.Arunesh Kumar, Son of Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Sri

Krishna Nagar Motihari, Police Station- Motihari, District- East Champaran.

60.Govind Mohan Singh, Son of Sevanand Singh, Resident of Village- Punhad,

Police Station- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga.

61.Nilesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Ramnath Pandey, Resident of Village- Sri

Krishna Nagar, Police Station- Motihari, District- East Champaran.

62.Santosh Kumar, Son of Suresh Singh, Resident of Village- Budhgareya,

Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

63.Pramod Kumar, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-

Thakurbari, Police Station- Town Motihari, District- East Champaran.

64.Narendra Kumar, Son of Hirdaya Paswan, Resident of Village- Ghato,

Police Station- Goh, District- Aurangabad.

65.Vinod Kumar, Son of Pitamber Mahto, Resident of Village- Indranagar,

Police Station- Chhatauni Motihari, District- East Champaran.

66.Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Rajendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-

Lodipur, Police Station- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad.

67.Ajay Paswan, Son of Sarju Paswan, Resident of Village- Nema Bigha,

Police Station- Gurua, District- Gaya.

68.Basant Kumar Chakrabarty, Son of Dilip Kumar Chakrabarty, Resident of

Village- Chhatauni Colony Motihari, Police Station- Motihari, District- East

Champaran.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

6/42

69.Dilip Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Charitra Singh, Resident of Village-

Karamchak, Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.

70.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Son of Saheb Singh, Resident of Village- Chorahat,

Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.

71.Gopal Jee, Son of Ramdas Singh, Resident of Village- Madanpur, Police

Station- Amas, District- Gaya.

72.Manish Kumar, Son of Surendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of Village- Agarwa

Nagar, Police Station- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran.

73.Bimlesh Kumar, Son of Kamlesh Jha, Resident of Village- Sukhnagar,

Police Station- K. Hat, District- Purnia.

74.Abhay Kumar, Son of Motilal Sah, Resident of Village- Hanuman Nagar,

Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District- Purnia.

75.Sanjay Kumar, Son of Binoda Nand Mishra, Resident of Village- Tatma Toli,

Police Station- Khanjanchi Hat, District- Purnia.

76.Rajnish Kumar, Son of Bhupendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Rahua, Police Station- Krityanand Nagar, District- Purnea.

77.Neeraj Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Thakur, Resident of Village- Dumra,

Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.

78.Amit Kumar Jha, Son of Subhash Chandra Jha, Resident of Village-

Dhamdaha, Police Station- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

79.Sartaz Khan, Son of Badruddin Khan Resident of Village- Laliyahi, Police

Station- Katihar, District- Katihar.

80.Manish Kumar, Son of Deena Nath Prasad, Resident of Village- Khajuriya,

Police Station- Bankey Bazar, District- Gaya.

81.Amir Kumar, Son of Nagendra Singh, Resident of Village- Bishunpura,

Police Station- Bishunpura, District- Patna.

82.Sanoj Kumar, Son of Late Kedarnath Arya, Resident of Village- Desath,

Police Station- Desath, District- Buxar.

83.Abdhesh Kumar Karyee, Son of Surendra Prasad Karyee, Resident of

Village- Sahpur Undi, Police Station- Patory, District- Samastipur.

84.Dheeraj Kumar, Son of Sri Amar Nath Roy, Resident of Village- Maula

Bagh, Police Station- Arrah, District- Bhojpur.

85.Samrendra Kumar Roy, Son of Bipin Kumar, Resident of Village- Balughat

Barahm Asthan, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur.

86.Anil Kumar, Son of Deo Chandra Prasad Srivatava Resident of Village-

Balapur, Police Station- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.

87.Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Son of Braj Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village-

Raghunathpur, Police Station- Turkaulia, District- East Champaran.

88.Niraj Kumar Jha, Son of Balanath Jha, Resident of Village- Bagahi, Police

Station- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran.

89.Rajesh Kumar, Son of Ramnath Singh, Resident of Village- Balughat Near

Jangli Mai Ashthan, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District-

Muzaffarpur.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

7/42

90.Pawan Kumar, Son of Tej Pratap Singh, Resident of Village- Rathopur

Newaji Tola, Police Station- Muffasil Chapra, District- Saran.

91.Rashmi Rani, Daughter of Bindhyachal Singh, Resident of Village-

Ratanpura Chhapra, Police Station- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Chhapra.

92.Priya Ranjan, Son of gauri Shankar Singh, Resident of Village- Dumari

Road Maripur, Police Station- Meerapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

93.Akabar Ali, Son of Md. Habib, Resident of Village- Damodarpur Paithan

Toli, Police Station- Damodarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.

94.Mukesh Singh, Son of Vijay Singh, Resident of Village- Shivpuri Colony

Road NO-01 Manpur, Police Station- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya.

95.Upendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Ramdev Ray, Resident of Village- Dipau,

Police Station- Kotwa, District- East Champaran.

96.Santosh Kumar Yadav, Son of Virendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Raghopur, Police Station- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.

97.Manohar Kumar, Son of Sugga Lal Baitha, Resident of Village- Belbanwa,

Police Station- Town Motihari, District- East Champaran.

98.Praveen Kumar Singh, Son of Raj Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-

Karariya, Police Station- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.

99.Abinash Kumar, Son of Raj Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Kovil,

Police Station- Islampur, District- Nalanda.

100

.

Tarun Kumar Singh, Son of Chandeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village-

Matihan, Police Station- Dariyapur, District- Saran.

101

.

Harendra Ray, Son of Prabhu Ray, Resident of Village- Saidpur Dighwara,

Police Station- Dighwara, District- Saran.

102

.

Ajit Kumar, Son of Sri Kaushal Kishore Dasaundhi, Resident of Village-

New Colony Balughat, Police Station- Town Muzaffarpur, District-

Muzaffarpur.

103

.

Abhinandan Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Niwash Singh, Resident of Village-

Mukrera, Police Station- Revilganj, District- Saran.

104

.

Nitesh Kumar Singh, Son of Madan Mohan Singh, Resident of Village-

Mukrera, Police Station- Rivilganj, District- Saran.

105

.

Md Kamrej Alam, Son of Md. Abdul Kalam, Resident of Village- Kusmhi,

Police Station- Salkhua, District- Saharsa.

106

.

Shailendra Mohan Singh, Son of Rajbrind Singh, Resident of Village- Kovil,

Police Station- Islampur, District- Nalanda.

107

.

Satyendra Kumar, Son of Raj Maheshwari Prasad, Resident of Village-

Pakari Barwan, Police Station- Pakri Barwan, District- Nawada.

108

.

Hemant Kumar Singh, Son of Suresh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Ashok Nagar, Police Station- Janki Nagar, District- Purnea.

109

.

Divakar Kumar Choudhary, Son of Satyanarayan Choudhary, Resident of

Village- Turkawalia, Police Station- Rajandih, District- Rohtas.

110

.

Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Shobhnath Singh, Resident of Village- Pawani,

Police Station- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

8/42

111.Amit Kumar, Son of Shyam Narayan Tiwari, Resident of Village- Kayam

Nagar, Police Station- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur.

112

.

Satyendra Kumar, Son of Yogendra Ram, Resident of Village- Siswa, Police

Station- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.

113

.

Pravin Kumar Singh, Son of Bipin Bihari Singh, Resident of Village-

Bahiro, Police Station- Nawada, District- Bhojpur.

114

.

Abhay Kumar, Son of Ramyatan Prasad, Resident of Village- Pachrukhiya,

Police Station- Khushrupur, District- Patna.

115

.

Abhay Kumar, Son of Krishna Kumar, Resident of Village- Dumraon, Police

Station- Dumraon, District- Buxar.

116

.

Devendra Ray, Son of Babu Saheb Ray, Resident of Village- Bithouli, Police

Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga.

117

.

Rajiv Kumar Singh, Son of Ganesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Punhad, Police Station- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga.

118

.

Shakti Kumar, Son of Ramadhar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Mahavir

Nagar House No-12, Police Station- Patliputra, District- Patna.

119

.

Santosh Kumar, Son of Arjun Singh, Resident of Village- Ramjee Chak

Digha, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna.

120

.

Ram Chandra Yadav, Son of Baleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-

Dilawarpur, Police Station- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

121

.

Jaynath Kumar Yadav, Son of Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village-

Birpur, Police Station- Laukaha, District- Madhubani.

122

.

Subir Kumar Singh, Son of Murari Lal Singh, Resident of Village- Raghua,

Police Station- Uchakagaon, District- Gopalganj.

123

.

Mukesh, Son of Ram Sagar Prasad, Resident of Village- Parewa, Police

Station- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran.

124

.

Ramesh Kumar, Son of Asharfi Ray, Resident of Village- Kunawa, Police

Station- PakriDayal, District- East Champaran.

125

.

Chandra Shekhar Ram, Son of Raghu Ram, Resident of Village- Barkagaon,

Police Station- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran.

126

.

Md. Zahid Khan, Son of Md Tarique Khan, Resident of Village- Dihlahi,

Police Station- Bishanpur, District- Darbhanga.

127

.

Arvind Kumar, Son of Govind Jee, Resident of Village- Ward No-11

Sawambar Teli Ki Gali, Police Station- Dumraon, District- Buxar.

128

.

Manoranjan Kumar Singh, Son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh, Resident of

Village- Masarh Tola, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur.

129

.

Bikram Kumar Jha, Son of Ashok Kumar Jha, Resident of Mohalla- Bank

Colony Lane No-8 Krishna Bihar Gola Road, Police Station- Ram Krishna

Nagar, District- Patna.

130

.

Jitendra Kumar, Son of Vishwanath Prasad, Resident of Village- Kinjer,

Police Station- Kinjer, District- Arwal.

131

.

Raju Kumar Singh, Son of Devendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Rathour Tola Newaji Tola, Police Station-Mufassil, District- Saran.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

9/42

132

.

Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of

Village- Aliyaspur, Police Station-Garkha, District- Saran.

133

.

Niraj Kumar, Son of Suresh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Masoomganj, Police Station- Chapra, District- Chapra.

134

.

Kundan Kumar Jhunnu, Son of Kamleshwar Thakur, Resident of Village-

Pursotampur, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur.

135

.

Arun Kumar Panday, Son of Namo Narayan Pandey, Resident of Village-

Nizirpur Near Central High School, Police Station- Ahiyapur, District-

Muzaffarpur.

136

.

Chandra Mauli Kumar, Son of Raja Ram Singh, Resident of Village-

Begampur Nathachak, Police Station- Begampur, District- Nalanda.

137

.

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Son of Shambhu Prasad, Resident of Village-

Patauralala Tola, Police Station- Mufassil Motihari, District- East

Champaran.

138

.

Awadhesh Kumar, Son of Kapildeo Singh, Resident of Village- Raghopur,

Police Station- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.

139

.

Ajit Kumar Singh, Son of Late Gokhul Singh, Resident of Mohalla-

Kalinagari Near Kali Mandir Raxaul, Police Station- Raxaul, District- East

Champaran.

140

.

Kumar Gourav, Son of Bijay Krishna Jha, Resident of Mohalla- Near Sagun

Niwas Kamal Nagar Colony Mirjanhat, Police Station- Mojahidpur, District-

Bhagalpur.

141

.

Pran Mani Singh, Son of Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-

Chandadih, Police Station- Dhoriya, District- Banka.

142

.

Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shyam Sundar Singh, Resident of Village-

Gangabagh Colony Barari, Police Station- Zeromile, District- Bhagalpur.

143

.

Sumit Kumar, Son of Satya Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Kashri,

Police Station- Antichak Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur.

144

.

Ranveer Kumar, Son of Ravindra Singh, Resident of Village- Karnauti,

Police Station- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.

145

.

Ravindra Kumar, Son of Tula Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Ekamba,

Police Station- Sirdala, District- Nawada.

146

.

Navin Kumar, Son of Ayodhya Rai, Resident of Village- Kharon Khurda,

Police Station- Sahar, District- Bhojpur.

147

.

Nagendra Kumar Verma, Son of Late Sidheshwar Nath Verma, Resident of

Village- Purnadih, Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.

148

.

Gautam Kumar Kashyap, Son of Ranjit Kumar Kashyap, Resident of

Mohalla- Mahatama Gandhi Nagar Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Police

Station- Agam Kuan, District- Patna.

149

.

Abhiram Kumar, Son of Umesh Sharma, Resident of Village- Karauta,

Police Station- Salimpur, District- Patna.

150

.

Ram Awatar Ram, Son of Ram Prabhaw Ram, Resident of Village- Dadar,

Police Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

10/42

151

.

Niraj, Son of Bisheshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Basepur, Police

Station- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi.

152

.

Shivjee Kumar, Son of Laxman Prasad, Resident of Village- Banahi, Police

Station- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur.

153

.

Ravindra Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Ram, Resident of Mohalla- Golghar

Park Road Patna, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

154

.

Suman Kumar, Son of Bijendra Prasad Kapri, Resident of Mohalla-

Sandalpur Sharma Tola Near Kali Mandir, Police Station- Muffasil, District-

Munger.

155

.

Rajiv Kumar, Son of Kameshwar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Chowk West

Ram Krishna Nagar, Police Station- Ram Krishna Nagar, District- Patna.

156

.

Bhim Singh, Son of Guput Singh, Resident of Village- Belaon, Police

Station- Belaon, District- Kaimur.

157

.

Vijay Kumar, Son of Suresh Ram, Resident of Village- Illage Kumari, Police

Station- Karmachat, District- Kaimur.

158

.

Binod Kumar Pal, Son of Ram Janam Pal, Resident of Village- Sawar,

Police Station- Karmachat, District- Kaimur.

159

.

Priti Kumari, Daughter of Sunil Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village-

Bsudeopur, Police Station- Muffasil, District- Munger.

160

.

Neha Kumari, Daughter of Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Sanhauli, Police Station- Khagaria, District- Khagaria.

161

.

Purushottam Kumar, Son of Sadhu Sharan Lal, Resident of Village- Sumka,

Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda.

162

.

Kanhaiya Kumar, Son of Yogendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Mokama Moldiar Tola, Police Station- Mokama, District- Patna.

163

.

Sushil Kumar, Son of Kapileshwar Paswan, Resident of Village- Kharatta,

Police Station- Chautham, District- Khagaria.

164

.

Ved Prakash Singh, Son of Dharamdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Rana

Bigha, Police Station- Barh, District- Patna.

165

.

Arun Kumar, Son of Hira Lal Mandal, Resident of Mohalla- Sharda Nagar

Purnia, Police Station- Purnia, District- Purnia.

166

.

Devdas Vatsa, Son of Ram Kishore Roy, Resident of Mohalla- Krishana

Garh Colony, Police Station- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

167

.

Chandra Shekhar Kumar Yadav, Son of Sheo Balak Yadav, Resident of

Village- Nandlal Kedera, Police Station- Sahpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

168

.

Surendra Prasad, Son of Ram Bilash Ram, Resident of Village- Belaon,

Police Station- Belaon, District- Kaimur.

169

.

Rajesh Kumar, Son of Chandra Mauli Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Babhangama, Police Station- Begusarai, District- Begusarai.

170

.

Achint Kumar Singh, Son of Nagendra Singh, Resident of Village- Khaldiya

Barka Gaon, Police Station- Tarari, District- Bhojpur.

171

.

Arvind Kumar, Son of Prem Chandra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- R.K.

College Gate Ward No-11 Madhubani, Police Station- Madhubani, District-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

11/42

Madhubani.

172

.

Suman Kumar, Son of Ram Baran Prasad, Resident of Village- Masud

Bigha, Police Station- Barh, District- Patna.

173

.

Yatendra Kumar Pathak, Son of Late Radha Krishna Pathak, Resident of

Mohalla- Bekapur Near Durga No.4, Police Station- Muffasil, District-

Munger.

174

.

Shivraj Nandan Singh, Son of Krishna Nandan Singh, Resident of Mohalla-

Veer Kunwar Singh Colony Munger, Police Station- Mufassil, District-

Munger.

175

.

Raghunath Jha, Son of Shyam Sundar Jha, Resident of Village- Horalpatti,

Police Station- Rameshwar Nagar, District- Darbhanga.

176

.

Reetesh Ranjan, Son of Chitranjan Prasad, Resident of Village- Bewarl,

Police Station- Kothi, District- Gaya.

177

.

Sambhoo Rai, Son of Jai Narayan Rai, Resident of Village- Keshopur, Police

Station- Kurhni, District- Muzaffarpur.

178

.

Kumar Raushan Kishor, Son of Arun Kishor, Resident of Village- Dhurgaon,

Police Station- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.

179

.

Mukesh Kumar, Son of Satya Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Rupsipur,

Police Station- Manhar, District- Vaishali.

180

.

Ajeet Kumar, Son of Ramdeo Paswan, Resident of Village- Prahlad Chauk,

Police Station- Fatua, District- Patna.

181

.

Vinay Kumar Sharma, Son of Late. Kailash Pati Sharma, Resident of-

Lagartoli Lane, Police Station- Pirbahore, District- Patna.

182

.

Vijay Kumar Choudhary, Son of Krishna Chandra Choudhary, Resident of

Village- Darhar, Police Station- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

183

.

Jitendra Kumar, Son of Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village- Bajitpur,

Police Station- Paru, District- Muzaffarpur.

184

.

Dilip Kumar Ram, Son of Shayam Sundar Ram, Resident of Village- Hata

Bishunpura, Police Station- Ekma, District- Saran.

185

.

Ajay Kumar, Son of Ram Rameshwar Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village-

Bighan, Police Station- Manjhi, District- Saran.

186

.

Sanoj Kumar Pandey, Son of Shatrudhan Pandey, Resident of Village-Chota

Brahampur, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Chapra.

187

.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

188

.

The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

189

.

The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

190

.

The Inspector General, Headquarter, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

12/42

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

with

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1022 of 2025

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2484 of 2023

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

1.The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road,

P.O.-Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14.

2.The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road, P.O.-

Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.Gopal Swaroop Son of Shitla Prasad Tiwary, Resident of Mohalla-New

Area, Post and Police Station-Sasaram, District-Rohtas.

2.Dayanand Mishra, Son of Late Ramchandra Mishra Resident of Village-

Bauraha, Police Station- Laukaha, District- Madhubani.

3.Sunil Kumar Dubey, Son of Ramkrishna Dubey Resident of Village and

Post- Bangra, Police Station- Daudpur, District- Chhapra.

4.Naresh Kumar, Son of Bishwanath Tiwari Resident of Village- Bhagwanpur

Pakari, P.O.- Manikpur Pakari, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Vaishali.

5.Prabhakar Kumar, S/o Gangadhar Prasad Vill.- Raghunathpur, P.S.-

Sahebpur, Dist.- Begusarai.

6.Rajesh Sharan, Son of Rameshwar Nath Sharan Resident of Village- Nai

Bazar, Betia Raj Chhawni Chapra, Police Station- Bhagwan Bajar, District-

Chapra (Saran).

7.Niraj Kumar, Son of Sri Shambhu Narayan Singh Resident of Village-

Tandih, Post and Police Station- Chauparan, Distt.- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

8.Navin Kumar Verma, Son of Mahendra Prasad Verma Resident of Village-

Kusumyori, Post- Fatehpur, Police Station- Chandan, District- Banka.

9.Rajeev Kumar, Son of Uday Shankar Prasad Singh Resident of Village and

Post- Vaishali, Police Station- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.

10.Vinay Shankar, S/o Mantu Singh Resident of Vill.- English Chichraun, P.S.-

Akbarpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur.

11.Rohit Goswami, Son of Satya Naryan Goswami Resident of Village-

Rangiya Saraiya, Police Station- Bandhuwa Kurawa, District- Banka.

12.Ajit Kumar Thakur, Son of Late Kusheshwar Thakur Resident of Village and

P.O.- Bhagwatpur, Police Station- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur.

13.Mithilesh Thakur, Son of Rajendra Thakur C/o Gopal Sharma, residing at

Janta Flat, Block No.- 5, Flat No.- 217, Sector- 06, B.N. Colony, Post- Lohia

Nagar, Police Station- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna.

14.Sarita Kumari, Daughter of Kartik Pandey Resident of Village- Rampur

Dumra, Police Station- Maranchi, Distt.- Patna.

15.Kamlesh Kumar, Son of Rajeshwari Singh Resident of Village- Rampur

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

13/42

Dumra, Police Station- Maranchi, District- Patna.

16.Subhash Chandra Bose, Son of Late Ramkrit Paswan, Resident of Village-

Mehandwar, Post- Pahariya, Police Station- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur

at Bhabhua.

17.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Son of Pramod Kumar Jha, Resident of Village-

Dhamoura, Police Station- Sathi, District- West Champaran.

18.Awadhesh Kumar Paswan, Son of Sheo Kumar Paswan, Resident of Village-

Semra, Post- Balua, Police Station- Brahampur, District- Buxar.

19.Shyam Nandan Yadav, Son of Budhan Yadav Resident of Village-

Bherkhiya, Police Station- Pipra, District- East Champaran.

20.Munna Ram, Son of Ramashankar Ram Resident of Village- Puchhari, Post-

Gayghat, Police Station- Brahampur, District- Buxar.

21.Goutam Ram, Son of Ram Prasad Ram Resident of Village- Hamindpur,

Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.

22.Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Krishna Nand Chaudhary, Resident of

Village- Marahiya, Post- Meera Mushehari, Police Station- Chhapra

Muffasil, District- Saran.

23.Parmeshwar Nath, Son of Madan Ram, Resident of Village- Ganj, Post-

Ossain, Police Station- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur.

24.Bipin Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Bhagwat Prasad, Resident of Village- Jai

Prakash Nagar, Police Station- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.

25.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Nandan Prasad Singh, Resident of

Village- Jaipur, Police Station- Mali, District- Aurangabad.

26.Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Son of Chandra Deo Singh, Resident of Village-

Khaira House New Area Near P.N.B. Aurangabad, Police Station-

Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.

27.Dilip Kumar Singh, Son of Dhaneshwar Singh, Resident of Village-

Chouriya, Police Station- Phesar, District- Aurangabad.

28.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Son of Dwarika Singh, Resident of Village-

Pratapganj, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Rohtas.

29.Anil Kumar, Son of Hamesha Nand Ray, Resident of Village- Taraon, Police

Station- Nashriganj, District- Rohtas.

30.Arvind Kumar Rai, Son of Shanketha Rai, Resident of Village- Baddha,

Police Station- Noan, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

31.Rahul Ranjan, Son of Sri Narad Singh, Resident of Village- Danwar, Police

Station- Kacchwa, District- Rohtas.

32.Sunil Kumar, Son of Nathuna Singh, Resident of Village- Bakara, Police

Station- Dinara, District- Rohtas.

33.Nitish Kumar Prasad, Son of Byas Prasad, Resident of Village- Bangra,

Police Station- Hathwa, District- Gopalganj.

34.Arvind Kumar Singh, Son of Baidyanath Singh, Resident of Village- Singha

Tola Panditpura, Police Station- Mirgan, District- Gopalganj.

35.Rana Ranjit Kumar, Son of Ramdeo Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

14/42

Jagbani, Police Station- Gamhariya, District- Madhepura.

36.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Son of Shrawan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-

Sabari, Police Station- Kachhawan, District- Rohtas.

37.Vijay Kumar, Son of Late Nawal Kishore Sharma, Resident of Village-

Muriyabigha, Police Station- Okari, District- Jehanabad.

38.Rajeev Kumar, Son of Kedhar Nath Kumar, Resident of Village- Pidhauli,

Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

39.Amresh Kumar, Son of Vignesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Barauni,

Ghazipur, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

40.Prashant Kumar, Son of Upendra Singh, Resident of ward no. 6, Village-

Nipania, Barauni, Police Station- Phoolwaria, District- Begusarai.

41.Shaliendra Kumar, Son of Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village- Gurdaspur

Nagar Parishad, Bihat, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

42.Prashna Prashant, Son of Chandeshwari Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Ismailpur, Nagar Parishad, Bihat, Police Station- Barauni, District-

Begusarai.

43.Pawan Kumar Yadav, Son of Bhola Yadav, Resident of Village- Pidhauli,

Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

44.Kamal Nath Jha, Son of Jagdev Jha, Resident of Village- Pidhauli, Police

Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

45.Mukesh Kumar, Son of Kapil Deo Singh, Resident of Village- Bihat, Police

Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

46.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

47.The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

48.The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

49.The Inspector General Headquarter, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

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

with

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1028 of 2025

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2372 of 2023

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

1.The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road,

P.O.-Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14.

2.The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bailey Road, P.O.-

Veterinary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna-14.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.Santosh Kumar Son of Lakshmikant Prasad, Resident of Village-

Damodarpur Chakia, Police Station-Pipra, District-East Champaran.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

15/42

2.Raj Kumar Singh Son of Rajendra Singh, Resident of village- Ameth, Police

Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur.

3.Nityanand Prasad, Son of Munni Ram, Resident of village- Ameth, Police

Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur.

4.Pritam Ranjan @ Pratim Ranjan, Son of Mahesh Prasad Verma, Resident of

Mohalla- Sitarampuir, Police Station- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

5.Bijendra Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Ram, Resident of village- Nathopur,

Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur.

6.Pradeep Kumar, Son of Radhe Shyam Gupta, Resident of village- Karhari,

Police Station- Karaghar, District- Rohtas.

7.Durga Prasad Pal, Son of Sheo Gahan Pal, Resident of village- Lalapur,

Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur.

8.Sunil Kumar, Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of village-

Tilkamanjhi Hat Jagdishpur Bhagpur, Police Station- Tilkamanjhi, District-

Bhagalpur.

9.Jitendra Kumar, Son of Ashok Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Jawaripur Jail

Road, Police Station- Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur.

10.Arun Kumar Tiwari, Son of Shalik Ram Tiwari, Resident of village-

Kenduni, Police Station-Magadh Medical, District- Gaya.

11.Pramod Kumar, Son of Suraj Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Nawagarhi Near

Old Jain Temple, Police Station- Vishnupad, District- Gaya.

12.Mungee Kumar, Son of Radhe Dhyam Singh, Resident of village- Parsar,

Police Station- Karakat Gorari, District- Rohtas.

13.Sanjay Kumar Karan, Son of Rajniti Prasad Yadav, Resident of village-

Labhgaon, Police Station- Khagaria, District- Khagaria.

14.Asgar Nadeem, Son of Raza Karim, Resident of village- Daniyalpur, Police

Station- Tegra, District- Begusarai.

15.Sanjiv Kumar Sinha, Son of Devendra Prasad, Resident of village- Kaswa,

Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

16.Niraj Kumar, Son df Pankaj Prasad Singh, Resident of village- Ward No. 20,

Naukhutti, Madhurapur, Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

17.Ashok Kumar Pathak, Son of Rajkumar Pathak, Resident of village-

Asnouliya, Police Station- Pandu, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand.

18.Narad Kumar Yadav, Son of Indradev Yadav, Resident of village- Bhildiha,

Police Station- Manatu, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand.

19.Bir Bhawani, Son of Bhagwan Singh, Resident of village- S.P. Kothi Marg,

Abadganj, Police Station- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand.

20.Mukesh Kumar, Son of Ramjee Choudhary, Resident of village- Ramnagar

Math, Police Station- Khagaria, District- Khagaria.

21.Manoj Kumar, Son of Awedesh Singh, Resident of village- Singhora, Police

Station- Bazirganj, District- Gaya.

22.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

16/42

23.The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

24.The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

25.The Inspector General, Headquarter, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 998 of 2025)

For the Appellant/s: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General

Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5

Mr. Shailesh Kumar (AC to GP- 05)

For the BSSC : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate

Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

Ms. Aastha Prakash, Advocate

For Pvt. Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Nilendu Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 988 of 2025)

For the Appellant/s: Mr. P. K. Shahi, A.G.

Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-04

For the Pvt. Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Nilendu Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1022 of 2025)

For the Appellant/s: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Ghyan Shankar, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC- 8

Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC- 8

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC- 8

For the Pvt. Respondent: Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Alexendar Ashok, Advocate

Mr. Nilendu Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1028 of 2025)

For the Appellant/s: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Ghyan Shankar, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Government Pleader (05)

For the Pvt. Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Advocate

Mr. Nilendu Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

17/42

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)

Date : 28-04-2026

Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned Advocate General for

the State of Bihar and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the Bihar Staff Selection

Commission. On the other hand, respondents are represented by

Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Senior Advocate in L.P.A. No. 988 of

2025; Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate in

L.P.A. No. 998 of 2025 and Mr. D. K. Sinha, learned Senior

Advocate in L.P.A. No. 1022 of 2025 along with other counsel

in the bunch of these letters patent appeal.

2. All these intra-court appeals have been preferred

under Clause 10 of the letters patent by the respondents-

appellant herein against the judgment dated 20.08.2025 passed

in C.W.J.C. No. 2372 of 2023 and other analogous writ

petitions, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has

been pleased to allow all the writ petitions and directed the

respondents to give appointment to the petitioners against the

vacancies at the earliest for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police

under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, if they are found

medically fit.

3. Though the point for consideration before this

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

18/42

Court lies in narrow compass considering the claim of the writ

petitioners for their appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police, by seeking parity with 133 appellants, who have been

allowed to undergo medical test by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

in Civil Appeal No. 2795-2797 of 2017 and consequently

appointed; however, in order to appreciate such issue, necessary

facts are summarized hereinbelow:-

(i) In the year 2004, the State of Bihar came out with

an Advertisement bearing No. 704 of 2004 duly issued by the

Bihar Staff Selection Commission for appointment of 1510 posts

of Sub-Inspector of Police. In pursuance of such advertisement,

physical test was conducted in the year 2006 and the selected

candidates were permitted to participate in the written

examination and finally the result was declared on 30.05.2008.

Some of the unsuccessful candidates, on being aggrieved with

the model answers, as there were certain mistakes, they

approached this Court by filing different writ petitions and

challenged the final result. In pursuant to the orders in different

writ petitions, an Expert Committee was constituted by the

Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as,

“Commission”). After proper re-scrutinization of the answer

sheets, 160 selected candidates were required to be removed.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

19/42

However, the Government of Bihar took a lenient view to retain

160 originally selected candidates and consequently, 639 more

vacancies were added to accommodate those 160 originally

selected candidates in order to maintain the roster.

(ii) Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, some of the

candidates still felt unsatisfied with the correctness of some

answers and the increase of vacancies by 639, preferred writ

petitions in the High Court and ultimately the matter was carried

to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1240-41 of 2011

with other analogous appeals.

(iii) On account of increase of the vacancies,

altogether 1510 + 639 total 2149 candidates were declared

successful and appointments were made. In the meanwhile, in

the case of Rajeev Kumar & Ors. -Vrs.- The State of Bihar &

Ors. and other analogous cases, (2015) SCC OnLine Pat 4597,

this Court issued a further direction to appoint 67 candidates

belonging to most backward category, who were wrongly left

out. The State, in pursuant thereto, appointed those 67

candidates and again taking a lenient view not to disturb the

selected candidates decided to appoint 186 candidates in the

High Court and the matter finally traveled to Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Chandra Gupta Kumar & Ors. -Vrs.- State

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

20/42

of Bihar & Ors., (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1810, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.08.2015 provided to

maintain status-quo.

(iv) In the meanwhile, in the contempt petition, those

were filed in C.A. No. 2805 of 2017 and C.A. No. 2806 of 2017,

which appeals were disposed off on 14.09.2017 in Civil Appeal

No. 2795-2797 of 2017; the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to

its order dated 08.05.2017 (Chandra Gupta Kumar & Ors.

-Vrs.- State of Bihar & Ors.), (2017) SCC OnLine SC 1896,

taking the view that the Court has carved out and classified 133

candidates into a specific category and placed them along with

186 candidates; exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of

the Constitution of India ruled that there cannot be any other

procedure for 133 candidates, except the medical examination.

(v) The appointment of 133 candidates, in pursuant to

the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of the

petitioners gave a fresh cause of action, as the petitioners in the

writ applications were having more marks than the last cut off

marks of 133 candidates. In the aforesaid premise, the writ

petitioners have preferred writ petitions, which came to be

dismissed after noticing that the issue now stands closed with

the selection process, having been completed long time back.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

21/42

(vi) Aggrieved, the writ petitioners preferred letters

patent appeal, which also came to be dismissed by different

orders of learned co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court. The

writ petitioners-respondents herein challenged the order of the

learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in S.L.P. (C)

No. 8932-8940 of 2020 and S.L.P. (C) Diary No(s). 39051 of

2019. Both the aforenoted Special Leave to Appeal as well as

SLP were heard on 28.10.2020 and 05.01.2021 respectively and

came to be dismissed. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking

note of the fact that the writ petitioners have already submitted

their representations, the authorities concerned were directed to

consider the same and dispose off in accordance with law.

(vii) The representations of the petitioners were

considered and finally came to be rejected by different orders by

the Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar which were

challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2372 of 2023 and

other analogous cases.

(viii) The learned Single Judge after having

considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for

the respective parties and taking note of the decisions rendered

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different matters, finally

allowed the writ petitions vide its order dated 20.08.2025 in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

22/42

C.W.J.C. No. 2372 of 2023 and other analogous cases by

holding as follows:-

“16 Taking into consideration

the fact that the petitioners passed in

physical test held in the year 2006,

appeared in the written test and qualified

and further taking into consideration the

fact that prima facie, it appears that they

have secured more marks under the

respective categories than the 133

candidates who were appointed pursuant

to the order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and further taking into

consideration the fact that in the year,

2023 and 2024 also, some of the

candidates were appointed by the

respondents under the recruitment

process of 2004, I am of the view that on

the ground of equity, the petitioners are

also entitled to get their appointment as

they have secured more marks than the

133 candidates. Depriving the petitioners

of their appointment would be grave and

irreparable prejudice to them.

Respondents ought to have acted with

more reasonableness and in accordance

with the legal principles discussed above

without causing discrimination and

prejudice to any candidate who are

similarly situated with other appointed

candidates rather on better footing as

they have obtained more marks than the

133 appointed candidates, as mentioned

above.

17 For the reasons, as

discussed above, all the petitions are

allowed.

18 The respondents are

directed to give appointment to the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

23/42

petitioners against the vacancies at the

earliest for the post of Sub Inspector

under Advertisement No 704 of 2004, if

they are found medically fit.”

4. Mr. P K Shahi, learned Advocate General,

Government of Bihar along with Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned

Senior Advocate representing the Commission while assailing

the impugned judgment submitted that all the petitioners-

respondents herein are admittedly unsuccessful applicants for

the post of Sub-Inspector of Police against the Advertisement

No. 704 of 2004. In sum and substance, they are seeking a

direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of

right of equality taking into consideration the order passed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No (s). 2795-2797 of

2017 (Chandra Gupta Kumar & Ors.) (supra), through which

133 candidates were directed to be appointed only after medical

examination, besides they also sought quashing of the order

dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Inspector General of Police

(Headquarters), Bihar, Patna by which the representations of the

petitioners have been rejected.

5. The very claim of the petitioners seeking parity

with 133 candidates is said to be wholly misconceived and

unacceptable, in view of the fact that they were appointed in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

24/42

pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated

24.10.2018, exercising the special power acquired under Article

142 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar background of

the litigation starting from the advertisement in the year 2004

with a clear stipulation that this judgment/order shall not be

treated as a precedent.

6. Taking this Court through the order dated

14.09.2017, in Civil Appeal No(s). 2795-2797 of 2017, it is

submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that

such judgment is passed in the peculiar facts of these cases, for

doing complete justice and therefore, it may not be treated as

precedent. The Hon’ble Court further directed the Registry that

it shall not entertain any petition/application, either impleadment

or reopening or review in respect of the selection of Sub-

Inspector for the year 2004, without express permission from

this Court. The Government of Bihar in compliance with the

aforesaid direction issued the appointment letters in favour of

133 candidates, who were found fit. However, without express

permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court no similar treatment

can be extended to others. Hence, the claim of the petitioners is

not tenable.

7. Mr. P K Shahi, learned Advocate General further

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

25/42

referred an order dated 01.11.2018 along with Contempt Petition

(C) No. 1871-1875 of 2018 and submitted that in the said case,

on the insistence made by some of the candidates, though the

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that applicants are free to make

representations appealing to the good conscience to the State of

Bihar and the State of Bihar is free to consider the same and

pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law but with the

caveat, in case, such representations made by the

intervenors/applicants are rejected, it will not give rise to any

proceedings/appeal in any of the Courts. Since all the writ

petitioners have submitted their representations, which was

considered in the light of the aforenoted order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and on being found no merit, came to be

rejected, it will not give rise to any proceeding/appeal as

mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

01.11.2018.

8. Various orders of the learned Single Judge as well

as of the learned Division Bench have been brought to the notice

of this Court that in similar circumstances, their cases were

dismissed. Learned Senior Advocates representing the State and

the Commission further submitted that the learned Single Judge

has committed error in holding that in the case of one Dinesh

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

26/42

Kumar and Mala, their appointments were made subsequent to

the appointment of 133 candidates and, as such, the selection

process has been continuing till date.

9. So far the case of Dinesh Kumar is concerned, it is

clarified that in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1711 of 2018, the

Government had decided to appoint him to the post of Sub-

Inspector of Police; since on account of non-disclosure of the

case registered against him in Character Verification Form

before appointment, he could not be appointed. Moreover, he is

also one of those 133 applicants before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. Similarly, in the case of Mala, she was not unsuccessful

candidate, rather her case was recommended for appointment

but was debarred on the basis of applying from two places,

hence her selection was not found to be in terms with the

prescriptions of Advertisement No. 05 of 2011. Aggrieved with

such action, she preferred C.W.J.C. No. 15182 of 2017. The

impugned order, withdrawing her recommendation was found to

be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the advertisement

and accordingly, quashed. Consequently, both were appointed

pursuant to the order of the Court.

10. It is further submitted that the learned Single

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

27/42

Judge has also failed to consider the categorical direction of the

Hon’ble Apex Court to not make any selection much less

appointment in regard to Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. The

error is apparent accepting the parity of the petitioners with 133

candidates ignoring the order/judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed

in Civil Appeal No(s). 2795-2797 of 2017.

11. It is lastly contended that the learned Single Judge

has not appreciated that the appointment against advertisement

of 2004 cannot be an endless process and, moreover, equality

under Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative

equality, merely because indulgence was extended to 133

candidates in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned

Senior Advocate for the respondents submitted that the case of

the petitioners are not based on parity with those of 133

candidates, who were duly appointed in pursuant to the

order/judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while exercising

the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India rather

the petitioners are having independent claim, seeking their

appointment on their respective merit. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court was seized of the matter, allowed the petitioners to

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

28/42

approach the High Court with a direction to the concerned

respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners raised in

their representations, but surprisingly, the concerned

respondents without considering the claim of the petitioners

have rejected the same by only saying that they are not covered

with Article 142 of the Constitution like the 133 candidates, who

have been directed to be appointed by the Hon’ble Apex Court,

irrespective of the fact that vide order dated 01.11.2018 passed

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of writ petitioners, it has

been clearly stated that the authorities have to take a decision in

accordance with law.

13. In the submissions of learned Senior Advocate the

representation has not been decided in accordance with law and

the petitioners, who have more marks, must not be left out. Even

though 133 candidates have been appointed under Article 142 of

the Constitution, which in no case takes away the rights given to

the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The

vacancies were/though for the year 2004, but the candidates

were selected in the year 2018 itself by the order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. Not only that, in the year 2023 and 2024,

further two candidates, namely, Dinesh Kumar and Mala have

been appointed in connection with the same advertisement,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

29/42

therefore, the selection process cannot be said to come to an end.

14. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

especially dated 14.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No (s).

2795-2797 of 2017 directing the Registry not to entertain any

petition/application, either impleadment or reopening or review

in respect of the selection of Sub-Inspectors for the year 2004,

without express permission from this Court shall only be

confined to the applicants of the said case and cannot be

applicable to the petitioners, who were not the parties.

Moreover, it is clearly observed that the Registry shall not

entertain only a petition/application either to impleadment or

reopening or review, there is no bar for other candidates to

approach the Court, if a fresh cause of action would arise.

15. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate

reiterating the aforesaid submissions further added that

admittedly the petitioners are bona fide candidates and their

bona fide is well reflected by the marks, which they secured, are

more than the cut off marks of 133 candidates and their

appointment cannot be denied only on the basis that 133

candidates have been appointed in pursuant to the order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court passed under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India. Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

30/42

does not say that the fundamental rights are forgone, as some of

the persons are appointed in a special facts and circumstances.

16. Undoubtedly, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court directing for appointment of 133 candidates says that it

cannot be treated as precedent, yet in any incidence it does not

take away the right rendered to the citizen of India under Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Non-consideration of the

claim of the petitioners, despite their higher marks than other

candidates is in complete derogation to Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

17. The order of the learned Single Judge has taken

note of all other aspect of the matter and rightly observed that

the appointment of the person with lesser merit ignoring those

who have secured higher marks is in violation of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination

and inequality of opportunity to citizens in the matter relating to

employment or appointment to any office under the State.

18. It is lastly contended that the selection stood

completed is fallacious, as the same belied by the Commission,

who have recently recommended the name of two of the

persons, noted hereinabove. All the more, the order passed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in other cases would not come in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

31/42

way of the petitioners.

19. Mr. D K Sinha, learned Senior Advocate has

primarily adopted the submissions led by the other Senior

Counsel and further advanced his submissions that the L.P.A.

No. 1022 of 2025 has not been filed by the State, but by the

Commission, which is only a recruiting agency, authorized to

ensure the recruitment. It is further contended with all

vehemence that the writ petitioners in their representations

specifically stated about obtaining higher marks than several

selected/appointed candidates and hence, preferred writ

petitions, as fresh cause of action arose in their favour, after

rejection of their representation by the State authorities. Thus,

non-consideration of the claim of the writ petitioners for their

appointment, despite admitting the factum of their higher marks

to the other candidates is in the teeth of the mandate of Article

14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge does not require any interference,

wherein the learned Court directed the respondents to give

appointment to the petitioners against the vacancies at the

earliest for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

20. This Court has given patience hearing to all the

learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

32/42

parties and also anxiously perused the materials available on

record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

21. The facts are not in dispute that the advertisement

was published long back in the year 2004 by the Commission

for appointment of 1510 post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The

writ petitioners were allowed to participate and the result was

declared on 30.05.2008. The model question and answer sheets

were re-scrutinized; consequently 160 originally selected

candidates were required to be removed but the State

Government took a decision to retain 160 originally selected

candidates and in order to accommodate them, 639 vacancies

were added to maintain the roster. Further it was noticed that

requisition for appointment on 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of

Police have been received to the Commission and in pursuant to

the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hold fresh

examination for 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police amongst

the candidates, who were the writ petitioners before this Court.

Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated

28.11.2011, considering the various applications, permitted all

the applicants, who were similarly situated to appear in the

examination for filling up 299 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

33/42

vide Advertisement No. 704 of 2004.

22. This Court also took notice that in pursuant to

further direction in case of Rajeev Kumar & Ors. (supra), 67

candidates belonging to most backward category were also

appointed and again the Government of Bihar in order to retain

those candidates, who were to be displaced outside, appointed

186 more candidates. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

the candidates were appointed in pursuant to the direction of the

Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court.

However, at no point of time, the writ petitioners have raised

any grievance that any candidate, having lesser marks than

them, have been appointed and for the first time they knocked

the door of the Court, when the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No (s). 2795-2797 of 2017 and other connected appeals

vide order dated 14.09.2017 directed to appoint 133 candidates

and when such order has not been complied, the aggrieved

candidates approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by

filing a contempt petition and finally, appointment letters were

issued in favour of 133 candidates. The writ petitioners

approached this Court by filing different writ petitions, which

came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as by the

learned Division Bench in different letters patent appeal, which

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

34/42

have been questioned before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No.-

8932-8940 of 2020 as well as in S.L.P. (C) No. 39051 of 2019.

23. Before coming to the orders passed by the Apex

Court, the facts which is apparent from the aforenoted case is,

that despite the writ petitioners having secured higher marks

than those 133 candidates, their claims have not been

considered. When this Court put a query to the learned Senior

Advocates for the respondents that as to how they are making

submissions that the case of the writ petitioners are independent

to those of 133 candidates, at the inception they have stated that

the petitioners have secured higher marks than other candidates

besides 133 candidates, but failed to give any such example.

24. This Court has also gone through the writ petitions

filed by the petitioners, but there is no such averment in this

regard that they have secured higher marks than any other

candidates, except 133 candidates, whose appointments were

made in compliance with the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

25. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of

the petitioner is based on parity with those of 133 candidates,

who have been appointed by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court while exercising the power under Article 142 of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

35/42

Constitution of India for the ends of justice.

26. Before moving ahead, it would be relevant to take

note of the order dated 14.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No

(S). 2795-2797 of 2017, which reads as follows:-

“13. We also make it clear that

this Judgment is passed in the peculiar

facts of these cases, for doing complete

justice and, therefore, it may not be

treated as a precedent.

14. In view of the above,

nothing survives in the contempt petitions,

being Contempt Petition Nos. 377-369 of

2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2797 of

2017, which are, accordingly, dismissed.

15. We direct the Registry that

it shall not entertain any

petition/application, either impleadment

or reopening or review in respect of the

selection of Sub-Inspectors for the year

2004 without express permission from this

Court.”

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further vide its order

dated 24.10.2018 in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2018 has

further directed as follows:-

“…….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

process to which the 186 candidates were

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

36/42

subjected to. The State and the Selection

Commission are directed to complete the

process positively on or before 1-11-2018

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 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.”

28. After careful perusal of the above referred orders,

undisputedly the selection and appointment of 133 candidates

were directed to be made in peculiar background of litigation in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India and the same shall not be treated as precedent. When the

identical issue, comprising the claim of the petitioners based on

parity with 133 candidates, duly appointed in pursuant to the

order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the

Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 was raised before the Apex

Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 227 of 2019 and other analogous

cases. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

its judgment dated 11.06.2020, Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. -Vrs.-

State of Bihar & Ors., (2020) 17 SCC 294 has refused to accept

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

37/42

the claim of the petitioners on the reasons assigned

hereinbelow:-

“18. 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 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 a

precedent. The order when specifically

held that it may not be treated as a

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 appointment as Sub-Inspector of

Police at this stage.

20. This Court has further

passed an order on 1-11-2018. It is also

relevant to notice that several candidates

some of which are the petitioners before

us, have also filed the impleadment

application in Contempt Petition No. 1711

of 2018 in CA No. 2805 of 2017, which

application was rejected on 1-11-2018

and in the order dated 1-11-2018, 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

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

38/42

free to consider the same but in the event

if the representation is rejected, it shall

not give rise to any proceeding/appeal in

any of the courts. The following

observations are made in this regard:

“4. 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.

5. 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 one month

from today, appropriate orders may be

passed by the State on those

representations within three months

thereafter.

6. 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.”

29. The Hon’ble Court while dismissing the Writ

Petition (C) No. 227 of 2019 along with other analogous cases

took note of the order dated 01.11.2018 passed in the case of

Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Amir Subhani & Ors., 2018 SCC

OnLine SC 3576 that in the event, the State of Bihar does not

accede to the representation of the applicants claiming similar

relief to 133 candidates that shall not give rise to any proceeding

in any of the Courts. As the Court persuaded to grant the said

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

39/42

relief in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.

30. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that the

writ petition was filed with the sole point for consideration by

granting parity with 133 candidates, who have been allowed to

undergo medical test by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while

exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India by making it clear that it shall not be treated as precedent

and subsequently, in order to give quietus to all the litigation and

bring the selection process to an end, which was started way

back in the year 2004, made it clear in case of Arvind Kumar &

Ors. (supra) that even if their representations are rejected, it will

not give rise to any proceeding/appeal, in any of the Courts and

further in the case of Chandra Gupta Kumar & Ors. (supra),

Civil Appeal No (S). 2795-2797 of 2017, even directed the

Registry that it shall not entertain any petition/application, either

impleadment or reopening or review in respect of the selection

of Sub-Inspectors for the year 2004 without express permission

from this Court.

31. In view of the discussion, above noted, any order

passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to

give appointment to the petitioners against the vacancies at the

earliest for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the same

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

40/42

advertisement, in the opinion of this Court is in the teeth of the

mandate of the Apex Court and accordingly, cannot sustain in

the eyes of law.

32. The writ petitioners, in no circumstances, can seek

parity with those of 133 candidates, who were appointed in a

special circumstances by the order of the Apex Court, with clear

mandate to bring closure of the selection process, started way

back in the year 2004. Nonetheless, the learned Single Judge

having accepted the contention of the writ petitioners on the

ground of equity that the petitioners are entitled to get

appointment, as they have secured more marks than 133

candidates and directed for their appointment, in our opinion is

contrary to the mandate of the Apex Court rendered

hereinabove.

33. Besides the fact, the petitioner would have no

further right to agitate their claim before any Court and the issue

now stands closed that the selection process having been

completed long time back. The claim of the writ petitioners that

the selection process has yet not completed, in view of the fact

that one Dinesh Kumar and Mala, who have been duly

appointed in the year 2023 and 2024 respectively, does not come

in rescue of the petitioners, in view of the clarification made by

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

41/42

the learned Advocates for the State as well as the Commission

that their appointments were made on account of reasons

disclosed and the directions made in the pending litigation.

34. This Court is also conscious of the fact that when

the challenge of the writ petitioners to the order of the learned

Single Judge and the learned Division Bench failed before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and the writ petitioners faced with such

situation took only a liberty to pursue their representation

pending before the State; once the same has been negated, no

fresh cause of action would arise till the earlier order of the

Hon’ble High Court holds the field and stand in their way, as the

rejection of the representation has to been seen in continuity

with the original order.

35. So far the contention of the learned Senior

Advocate that in the batch of the Letters Patent Appeal one of

the appeal has been preferred by the Commission and not by the

State, hence it is not maintainable, does not find any merit, in

view of the fact that once the Commission being a recruiting

agency is entrusted to have a fair recruitment process and further

to make recommendation of eligible candidates; any order or

action which will impair and nullify such process or may result

in illegal appointment de hors rule, we do not find any wrong in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.998 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026

42/42

the challenge led by the Commission. Moreover, in the case at

hand, it is not the fact that the State is not a party rather the State

and its authorities were also the parties.

36. In view of the legal position and the facts

disclosed, this Court finds substance in the present batch of the

letters patent appeals and the same stands allowed.

37. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge is, hereby, set-aside.

38. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

shivank/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ : I agree.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE 07.04.2026

Uploading Date 28.04.2026

Transmission Date NA