IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7563 of 2010 1. SANJIV RANJAN S/O SRI CHANDRA MANI PRASAD R/O VILL.- NAUAGARHI, P.S. NAYA RAM NAGAR, DISTT.- MUNGER (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (R.P.F.), NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL DIRECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI ----------- 3. 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as the “R.P.F.”). 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable in the R.P.F. His candidature has been rejected with reference to the verification report received from the police authorities under Letter No. 1 dated 17.3.2010, Annexure-3 which is impugned in this application. The rejection order, Annexure-3 was served on the petitioner at his village home situate in Village- Nauagarhi, P.S.- Naya Ram Nagar in the district of Munger, Bihar. He questions the rejection order with reference to adverse entry made in the verification report and submits that rejection of the candidature with reference to the adverse report communicated by the police authorities of the district is mala fide as the said case was instituted between the agnates after he submitted his application for appointment and in the said case all the witnesses who have been examined during trial have become hostile and not supported the occurrence. 3. Counsel for the R.P.F. without disputing the submission of the petitioner on merit has opposed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. He states that as the entire selection process was conducted in Lucknow, the writ petition should be maintained in the - 2 - Allahabad High Court and not before this Court. In support of such plea he has placed reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 17085 of 2009, whereunder the case of the petitioner of the said case was rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court on the ground of maintainability as the selection process was conducted in the said case in the State of Rajasthan and the non-selection was communicated to the petitioner of the said case from the State of Rajasthan in the State of Bihar, the Division Bench under orders dated 23.12.2009 rejected the writ case observing that selection process having been conducted in the State of Rajasthan mere communication of rejection to the petitioner in the State of Bihar will not make the writ case maintainable in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Similar is the case in hand as the selection process having been conducted at Lucknow rejection communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 17.3.2010, Annmexure-3 at Munger the writ case does not become maintainable in the Patna High Court, which is, accordingly, rejected. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)