IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2485 of 2003 RAKESH KUMAR son of Shree Raghunandan Prasad Sinha, resident of village- Dewaria, P. S. – Silao District- Nalanda and at present residing in Bardhwan Compound, Ranchi, 834001, P.S and District- Ranchi. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chairman, 2. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-800001. 3. Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna-800001. 4. Ashish Rajeev, through Director of Agriculture, Bihar. … Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner .. None. For the BPSC. .. Md. Nadim Seraj, ADV. For the State .. Mr. Amanullah, S.C.17 Mr. M. K. Pathak, AC to S.C.17 6. 16.07.2009. No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and counsel for the State of Bihar are present. In this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer to the following effect:- “1 (i) To call for the Answer Sheets along with the application forms of all the 48 candidates finally selected for appointments and to initiate thorough enquiry into the irregularities committed by the respondent no.-2 in connection with serial no. 10, Advertisement No. 43/2001 under heading Directorate of Agriculture, Published on 31st December, 2001 by the Deputy Secretary-cum- Controller of Examination of the Respondent no. 2. (ii) To cancel the aforesaid selection of 48 candidates who do not fulfil the requisite qualification, and conditions in respect of Degree, age, resident, reservations and other Back 2 Ward Classes Certificates laid down in the aforesaid advertisement. (iii) to restrain the Director of Agriculture respondent no. 3 for such appointments of the aforesaid 48 selected candidates on the post of Block Agriculture Officer. (iv) to direct the respondent no. 2 to publish the name or names of the candidates next in the merit list of the candidates successful in screening test conducted by the respondent no. 2.” From the reading of the writ application it would be clear that the grievance of the petitioner relates to an advertisement dated 31.12.2001 in respect of which the Commission had already conducted the selection test and had also made recommendation on the basis of which the Government had made appointment on 11th December 2003. The selected and appointed candidates who could be affected by the result of this writ application on account of reliefs sought therein have not been impleaded as parties despite service of the counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner. That apart, the grievance of the petitioner as against respondent no. 4 on the issue of qualification has hardly any relevance inasmuch as in the counter 3 affidavit which was filed by the State it was clearly mentioned that respondent no. 4 had not been appointed. Therefore, if the respondent no. 4 is appointed in future and the petitioner can be one of the candidates who could displace the respondent no. 4 being next in the select list, he will have a liberty to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 4. Finally, this Court would find no justification in only part of the prayer by which the petitioner has sought to assail the entire selection process inasmuch as no material has been brought on record to justify such prayer. That being so, this writ application being misconceived is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)