IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3399 of 2007 Jai Prakash Sahani, Son of Sri Ram Swarup Sahani, resident of village- Rajapur Sikrauhula, P.O. – Koria Haibatpur, District Begusarai … .. Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Deputy Secretary, having its officer at 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna 4. The State of Bihar 5. The District Magistrate, Chapra … .. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02/ 14.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar Public Service Commissioner, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the BPSC). 2. Petitioner appeared in the First Regional Office Competitive Examination, 1998 conducted by the BPSC. He has filed this writ petition for a direction to the BPSC to recommend his case for appointment on the basis of the result of the said examination, as according to the petitioner, he became successful in the said examination vide result, Annexure-4. Later, the authorities of the BPSC entertained suspicion 2 about the candidature of the petitioner and others that they indulged in fraud while appearing in the said examination and the roll number of those who are alleged to have committed fraud in appearing in the competitive examination was also published in the newspaper giving details of the advertisement number, name, roll number and the date of appearance of the candidate for hearing in the matter. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without considering the case of the petitioner in response to the notice, Annexure-5, the authorities of the BPSC erroneously failed to recommend the petitioner for appointment. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the order of the High Court dated 10.7.2006 passed in the case of Kailash Nath Yadav and another bearing C.W.J.C. No. 157 of 2006, Annexure-6 and submitted before this Court that present petitioner be also allowed to represent before the authorities of the BPSC in the light of the direction contained in the said 3 order. 4. Counsel for the BPSC has opposed the prayer by filing counter affidavit and submitted that the application form which the petitioner had submitted was examined and it was found that he had appended different photographs with the application form submitted for appearing in the preliminary and final examination. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that under press notice, Annexure-5, petitioner was asked to appear on a date fixed so as to verify the correctness or otherwise of the photographs appended with the application forms. Petitioner never appeared to contest the genesis of suspicion raised against him that he had given two different photographs in the application forms. The application forms have been appended with the counter affidavit in three sheets. From perusal of the application form, it appears that the petitioner had given two different photographs. The photographs in three sheets are different as the photograph in sheet no.1 is of different person 4 and in sheet nos. 2 and 3 is of different person. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, I am not inclined to proceed with the writ petition, which is dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)