IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7122 of 2010 1. NITYA NAND KASHYAP S/O SHRI UDAY NARAYAN RAY R/O VILL.- BHARAT RASALPUR, P.S.- NATH NAGAR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR – Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA – Respondents. ----------- 2 27.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. There are two grounds on which the re-constituted committee has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. The first ground of rejection is that the experience certificate does not contain requirement of workshop being registered under the Factories Act. Counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure 4 which is the license granted under the Factories Act in the year 2007. Learned Advocate General has submitted that in many a case the license of the workshop expires and is not renewed due to the fact that the matter remains pending with the authorities concerned and as such this aspect of the matter will be considered by the Commission and the Commission would not take a stand that the experience certificate should be ignored on the ground that the renewal has not been done, specially as it is not within the power of the workshop to expedite the renewal of the registration under the Factories Act. The second ground for rejection of the petitioner’s 2 candidature is that Parpatra II does not bear the signature of the District Transport Officer. Regarding this aspect learned counsel for the petitioner submits that page 22 of the brief i.e. part of Annexure 4 series indicates, that the District Transport Officer has signed on Parpatra II. It has been stated in Parpatra II that the petitioner is authorized to drive PSV (HMV) within the State of Bihar. It is further submitted that the driving license of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner has the driving license of light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles. With respect to genuineness of Parpatra II issued by the District Transport Officer it appears that there are some dispute involved. This court, therefore, directs that after the selection of the candidates, Parpatra II should be verified by the Commission and their appointments will be subject to verification of such documents. This writ petition is disposed of as it is otherwise covered by the decision of this court rendered in CWJC No. 5859 of 2010 and its analogous cases on 23.4.2010 and CWJC No. 5993 of 2010 and its analogous cases disposed of on 26.4.2010. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)