C.W.J.C. No. 6937 of 2006. Case: Bipin Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | C.W.J.C. No. 6937 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Durganand Jha, Adv. and For Respondents: P.K. Shahi and S.S. Sundaram, Advs. for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, J.P. Shukla and R.K. Shukla, Advs. for Respondent No. 4 and Kumar Malendu, J.C. to AAG-8 |
| Judges | Ramesh Kumar Datta , J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 309 |
| Judgement Date | August 02, 2006 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
-
The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents-authorities to amend/delete the condition of examination imposed in selection of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Advertisement No. 1006 published in daily news paper dated 26.5.2006, as contained in Annexure-4 and further to advertise the selection of Junior Engineers in accordance with the rules and norms for apprenticeship trainees as laid down in the order of the Supreme Court and this Court and also to set aside the said advertisement to the extent of the requirement of holding of examination for those, who have received apprenticeship training.
-
The petitioners claim to be Apprenticeship trainees a though no details regarding the institutions from which they had received the said training any other details in that regard are mentioned anywhere in the writ petition. Earlier, both the petitioners had filed C.W.J.C. No. 10477 of 1998 which was dismissed by order dated 16.9.1999 with a direction to the State Government to frame a rule or issue necessary instructions so that in the of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) the directive of the apex court in the case of U.P. Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. AIR1995SC2152 be strictly adhered to.
-
Learned Counsel or the petitioners submits that one of the directions in the said case was that the trained apprentice shall not be required to appear in written examination for the purpose of his appointment. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 3465 of 2000 on the ground that the direction regarding the framing of rules or issuance of instructions had not been complied with. The said M.J.C. was disposed of by order dated 4.12. 2003 (Annexure-A) in view of the show cause filed on behalf of the State in which copy of the rules framed by the State Government in this behalf was enclosed and the court felt satisfied that the order dated 16.9.1999 stood complied with.
-
Again, the petitioner and others filed C.W.J.C. No. 1179/2004 in which specific direction was sought for incorporating the provision of making 50% reservation for apprenticeship training and for exemption from any type of written test as given in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra). The petitioners had also prayed for a direction for making provision for age relaxation since after 1996 no advertisement had been made for selection of Junior Engineer (Civil). During the pendency of the said writ petition, an advertisement was issued for filling up the posts of 1070 Junior Engineers for six months only, which was also challenged by filing interlocutory application. The writ petition was, thereafter disposed of by order dated 17.5.2005 with observation that the rules, which have been framed are required to be followed in its totality, rather the aspect, which is required to be further made clear that if the respondents feel the requirement of such persons and if regular appointment is required to be made, the same should be made only after advertisement following the Rules, which have subsequently been framed in view of the direction of the Supreme Court. It is thus, clear from the said order dated 17.5.2005 that no direction was given by this Court for making any change in the Rules framed as had been sought by the petitioners. The present petitioners were apparently satisfied with the said order of this Court and did not challenge the same but another petitioner who had joined with them in that case filed L.P.A. No. 767 of 2005 which, it is stated, is still pending before this Court. It is further pointed out that a Civil Review No. 206/05 has also been filed by the State-respondents in that case, which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial