IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8440 of 2010 1. Sanjit Kumar S/O Shri Tej Narayan Yadav R/O Dumrail, P.S.- Puraini, P.O.- Puraini, Distt.- Madhepura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Darbhanga 4. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Koshi Range, Saharsa 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Saharsa 6. The Superintendent Of Police, Madhepura ----------- 6. 30.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under an Advertisement issued in the year 1995 and came to be selected. When appointment was not provided he moved this Court in CWJC No. 8980 of 1999 disposed on 10.12.2004.The Court observed that if there were directions of the Director General of Police and the DIG to the Superintendent of Police for his appointment, he should first approach the Director General of Police who shall examine the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he represented before the authorities when his matter has been shuttled between one officer to another through the years and it is more than apparent from Annexure 10 to the writ application, a letter of the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa dated 11.11.2006, that the petitioner has wrongly been denied appointment. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit does not point out any material with regard to ineligibility of the petitioner for any ground whatsoever vis a vis the terms and conditions of appointment. It is submitted that the matter is very old and the records are not available. The genuineness and contents of the letter dated 11.11.2006 of the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa has not been denied in the 2 counter affidavit. In view of the clear recitals contained therein the defence of any records not being available is irrelevant. The letter is self explanatory. It states that the petitioner was empanelled, but in pursuance of a complaint by one Sanjay Kumar of exclusion of his candidature the latter came to be included leading to the name of the petitioner being removed from the select list on 17.12.1996. When Sri Sanjay Kumar did not appear before the Selection Board and he was found unfit by the Medical Board his name was removed, reviving the status of the petitioner who had to be moved out of the list due to lack of vacancy. That clinches the issue as far as the petitioner is concerned. The counter affidavit only seems to prolong the matter. Perhaps, if the respondents had been a little more careful in filing their counter affidavit and had gone through the pleadings in the writ application appropriately the casualness with which they have treated a proceeding before this Court refusing to deal in detail vis a vis their own documents, the litigation may have been avoided much earlier. The Court however cannot loose sight of the fact that the advertisement and selection pertains to the year 1995. The earlier writ petition was disposed in 2004.The present writ petition has been filed in 2010. The defence that the petitioner was pursuing his representations and which the authorities were considering in one form or other does not fully appeal to the Court. Laxity in approach is attributed to both parties and the petitioner alone cannot be singled out on that issue. A wrong denial of appointment may preserve the seniority though not the monetary benefits. But the petitioner wants appointment as Constable in a Police Force. Discipline along with training shall be very necessary for him otherwise he may not be in a position to handle 3 not only the responsibility but also the power that may come to him if he be given seniority from the date that he has been denied appointment. Realising this difficulty Mr. Shahi appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that the petitioner shall not lay out any claim for seniority from the date that he should have been appointed and that he shall be satisfied with an appointment from the present. The Court holds that in absence of any contention on behalf of the respondents with regard to ineligibility of the petitioner, the writ petition has to succeed. Let the respondents now consider the case of the petitioner for appointment within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)