IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18669 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Choudhary, Son of Paras Nath Choudhary Village-Parasia, Post-Parasia, P.S.- Brahampur, District-Buxar, Bihar, India (Roll No. 8112- District-Patna, Date of Birth-12.05.1985 Marks-13) Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector of General, Human Right, Bihar, Patna. 4. Inspector General (Bihar Military Police), Patna. 5. The Chairman, Central Recruitment Board-cum-Addl. Inspector General, S.C.R.B., Bihar, Patna. 6. The Chairman, Central Range, Board No.1, Patna. 7. The Chairman, Central Range, Board No. 2, Patna. 8. The Chairman, Central Division Board No. 1, B.M.P. Patna. 9. District Superintendent of Police, Patna District, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 2. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, learned A.C. to S.C. 3 for the respondents. The petitioner has moved this Court seeking appointment on the post of constable in Patna range against Advertisement No. 01 of 2004. At the very outset, without going into the merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is covered by a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 and its analogous cases. He prays that similar directions may be issued in the present case also. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand raises objection stating that the petitioner has not 2 annexed his admit card and thereby there is a doubt as to whether he actually participated in such selection process or not, since the order of this Court in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 was with regard to those persons who had actually participated in the selection process. He further submits that the petition suffers from delay and laches in as much as the petitioner has not approached this Court within a reasonable time from the cause of action having arisen. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that he has brought on record the receipt given to him on filling up the form and also draws the attention of this Court to paragraphs no. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition in which he has given his roll number. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the categorical statement made by the petitioner in paragraph no. 7 that the roll number is 8112 in B.M.P. Patna for his test in the year 2006, prima facie there is strong indication that the petitioner had actually participated in such selection process. As far as delay and laches are concerned, the petitioner though ought to have moved for the redressal of his grievances earlier but in view of the fact that this Court has been indulgent to such persons till date and if similarly situated persons are being granted some indulgence then 3 the petitioner, according to this Court, should not be precluded from such indulgence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed off in the light of order passed in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 and its analogous cases. The authorities shall be obliged to go through a similar exercise in the case of the petitioner also. However, this is subject to the rider that the authorities may first verify and satisfy themselves that on facts the petitioner is similarly situated to the persons who were party before this Court in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 and its analogous cases. With the aforementioned observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed off. Anand Kr. ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)