IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8890 of 2011 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar, S/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, P.O. – Simariya Ghat, Dist. – Begusarai, State – Bihar, PIN Code – 851126 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar (Through the Chief Secretary), Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna, 2. Bihar Public Service Commission (Through its Deputy Secretary) 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Belie Road, Patna – 800 001 3. The High Court of Judicature at Patna (Through its Registrar General), Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Petitioner In person) For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad, GP 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 . 17.5.2011. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Rakesh Kumar, a practising Advocate. The petitioner has appeared in person. The matter at dispute is the recruitment process for selection and appointment for 217 vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the Bihar Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1955. The petitioner had filed CWJC No. 5691/2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the same subject matter. The said petition has been disposed of Patna High Court CWJC No.8890 of 2011 (2) dt.17-05-2011 2 / 2 2 Dilip. by us along with other matters in the same subject matter on 11th May 2011. The present petition has been filed on 6th May 2011 without disclosing the factum of pending CWJC No. 5691/2011 filed by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has made a categorical statement “The petitioner has not moved earlier any petition for the same relief before this Hon’ble Court”. We are alive to the articulation of the above statement. The reliefs may not be identical in words; they may be articulated, but essentially the reliefs claimed are the same. In our opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts alone. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )