IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18991 of 2010 KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, son of late Devinandan Singh, resident of village-Sekhna, P.S. Bairginia, District-Sitamarhi. ………. Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Collector, Sitamarhi 3.The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat,Bairgina, District-Sitamarhi. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha,Advocate For the State: Mr.R.C.P.Bharti, S.C.14 Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari,Advocate -------- 5. 14.12.2010 Earlier also, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.5086 of 2008. This Court, while disposing of the said writ application by order dated 5.8.2009, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, directed the District Magistrate to complete the enquiry as regards date of birth of the petitioner as also to pass appropriate orders in the light of the enquiry report within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The petitioner was also given liberty of challenging the order of the District Magistrate, if he was not satisfied with the same with further liberty to raise the point of jurisdiction. The petitioner, thereafter, again filed the present writ petition making an allegation - 2 - that the District Magistrate has not completed the enquiry as directed by this Court. This Court had been constrained to observe in an earlier order in view of the submissions made that the District Magistrate is in contempt of the orders of this Court dated 5.8.2009. However, counter affidavit was permitted to be filed in the matter. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, it is stated that repeatedly notices were given to the petitioner for appearing before the Medical Board constituted in terms of the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department but the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the said resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Be that as it may, when the District Magistrate had been directed to complete the enquiry into the date of birth by this Court within a timeframe and he constituted a Medical Board in terms of the Circular of the Personnel - 3 - and Administrative Reforms Department for fixing the age of the petitioner, it was not open to the petitioner to have refused to receive the notice or to have failed to appear before the Medical Board. He could have appeared before the Board after registering his protest and thereafter any order passed by the District Magistrate could have been challenged by him as per liberty granted by this Court itself in the earlier order. It is stated that a newspaper advertisement has been made giving last chance to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board in view of the earlier order passed, which appears not to have been complied with on account of the laches on the part of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by him is not maintainable at this stage unless the petitioner co-operates with the District Magistrate to enable him to complete the enquiry. If the petitioner has any objection to the application of the Circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, he may appear before the Board after registering his protest and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by the District Magistrate - 4 - in the light of the enquiry report the same, as already held by this Court by order dated 5.8.2009, would be open to challenge by him on all grounds including the requirement of the report of the Medical Board. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 16.12.2010 as per the date fixed in the newspaper advertisement along with his application registering his protest and thereafter the District Magistrate shall complete the enquiry proceedings in terms of the earlier directions of this Court. The District Magistrate shall complete the enquiry within four weeks after the appearance of the petitioner and also pass an appropriate order as directed in the earlier order within a further period of four weeks. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )