IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18639 of 2011 1. Sohan Tripathi, Son of late Sheo Raj Tripathi, Resident of Village, P.O. & P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 2. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Siorup Singh, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District-Bhojpur 3. Rajesh Ram, Son of late Bahadur, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 4. Binay Kumar, Son of Ram Das Sah, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 5. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Bhuneshwar Singh, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 6. Mananjay Singh, Son of Sri Rabindra Singh, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 7. Jitendra Ram, Son of Sri Ramji Ram, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur 8. Pawan Kumar, Son of Keshri Singh, Resident of Village Chatar, P.O.-Babhangawan, P.S. Barahra, District- Bhojpur 9. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Nakul Singh, Resident of Village & P.O.-Ekawana, P.S. Barahra, District- Bhojpur 10. Prabind Kumar Singh, Son of Awadhesh Singh, Resident of Village Milki, P.O.-Jaityapur Kurua, P.S. Ghoshi, District –Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 4. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur 5. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur 6. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hazipur 7. The Commandant, B.M.P.-14, Patna 8. The Commandant, B.M.P.-8, Begusarai 9. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya. ----------- 2. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal learned A.C. to G.A. 7 for the respondents. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondents for considering their cases for appointment to the post of constable pursuant to the advertisement 2 published in the year 2004. Learned counsel, without adverting to the merits, at the very outset points out that a Division Bench of this Court earlier in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 and analogous cases has passed an order in which there are certain directions with regard to such petitioners for considering their cases for such appointment. He submits that the present case is also fully covered by such decision since the facts are similar. Learned counsel for the State submits that he is not readily in a position to certify that the case of the petitioners, on facts, is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition stands disposed off in similar terms as L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009. The respondents shall also undertake a similar exercise in the case of the petitioners as directed by order passed in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009. However, this will be subject to the condition that the authorities shall verify with regard to the facts of the present case and satisfy themselves that it is similar to the facts of the persons in L.P.A. No. 831 of 2009 and its analogous cases. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Anand Kr. ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)