IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1642 of 2009 1. ABHISHEK KUMAR, son of Dr. Dipak Kumar Sharma, resident of C/o Dr. P. Meherem Kaman Tola, Ara-802301 2. Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Sri S. K. Singh, resident of Indrawati Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, Rajabazar, Patna-14. 3. Arvind Kumar, son of Sri Ram Prit Ram, resident of village- Jalalpur, P.O. Dhanarua, District-Patna-804451. 4. Kumar Prashant, son of Sri Kameshwar Thakur, resident of C/0 Ram Kishore Singh, At-Ahiyapur (south of Bazar Samiti), P.O.-Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 5. Dinesh Kumar, son of Upendra Das, resident of village- Rampur Jalalpur, P.O.-Rampur Jalalpur, Via-Dalsingh Sarai, District-Samastipur. 6. Arvind Kumar, son of Sri Durga Ram, resident of Mohalla- Koiri Tola, in front of U.H.F. Terminal, Bettiah, West Champaran. 7. Niraj Kumar Singh, son of Om Prakash Shah, resident of Sudhi Tola Lane, Mahendru, Patna-16. 8. Harendra Prasad, son of Sri Bachanu Ram, resident of village- NaiBasts(Madhopur,), P.O. & P.S. Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). 9. Bindu Swami, son of Sri Gyan Bhushan Singh, resident of C/o Dr. Harihar Nath Roy, Dujra Chawk(Buddha Colony), P.O. G.P.O. District-Patna. 10.Kunwar Pratap Alexander, son of Sri Harendra Prasad, resident of Hathwa Market Campus, P.O. Bankipur, District- Patna. 11.Dipak Kumar Das, son of Nageshwar Das, resident of village- Chaiti, P.O. Ranga, P.S.Belhar, District-Banka-813207. 12.Ms. Sunita Kumari, daughter of Jagdeo Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Mangla Nagar Bank colony Ramchandrapur, P.O. & P.S. Biharshariff, District-Nalanda.-----Petitioners. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY Board, a body constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 having its office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali in town and District of Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, the Bihar Strate Electricity Board, Vidhut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Department of General Administration, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Prabhat Kumar son of Shri Baleshwar Roy, resident of Magardahi, Ward no.29, P.S.Samastipur, District-Samastipur- -------------------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- - 2 - For the petitioners ; Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajiv Giri, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, Adv. ----------- 3. 6.2.2009 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Twelve petitioners have joined this writ petition with the prayer that the judgment dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure-9), passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no.16819 of 2008 ( Prabhat Kumar Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.), may be reheard and reviewed, inter alia, on the ground they were not parties to the proceedings, and also because of non-consideration of certain relevant aspects of the matter. It is submitted in the alternative that the ratio of the judgment should be confined to the cadre of employees with which it was concerned, and should not be made applicable to the other categories of employees covered by the same advertisement. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Board issued an advertisement bearing Employment Notice no.5 of 2007 (Annexure-1), which appeard in the local dailies on January 2008, inviting applications from different categories of the employees. The following extract from the advertisement would be helpful. - 3 - S. No. Name of the Post Pay Scale Total No. of Post Category & Code UR 1 SC 2 ST 3 EBC 4 BC 5 Female (BC)* 6 1 Assistant Eelectrical Engineer (General Cadre) 7850-275- 10050-300- 13650 133 67 21 1 24 16 4 2 Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO Cadre) (Electrical / Electrinocs) 8125-275- 10050-300- 13650 39 20 6 1 7 4 1 Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO Cadre) (Mechanical) 8125-275- 10050-300- 13650 12 6 2 - 2 2 - 3 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) 5800-200- 7800-250- 11050 137 69 22 1 25 16 4 4 Junior Electrical Engineer (GTO Cadre) 5800-200- 7800-250- 11050 35 18 6 0 6 4 1 One Prabhat Kumar was a candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(GTO cadre)(Mechanical). The selection process comprises of three parts. The first part is of written test, and the second part is of viva-voce test. The third and the final phase comprises of Computer Literacy test wherein the candidate has to score a minimum of 50 qualifying marks which shall not be added to the final/total marks obtained by the candidates. In other words, the candidates who have crossed the first two phases have only to score the minimum qualifying marks in the Computer Literacy Test to become eligible for the appointment. Prabhat Kumar appeared in the first two parts of the selection process and was placed at serial no.14 of the merit list, indicating the combined effect of the first two parts - 4 - of the selection process. There are twelve vacancies for the category of Assistant Executive Engineer(G.T.O. cadre) (Mechanical). The respondent authorities had decided to invite like number of candidates for the last phase of the selection process, namely, Computer Literacy Test, as a result of which the petitioner was not called for the last phase of the selection process leading to C.W.J.C. no.16819 of 2007. The same was allowed by the judgment dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure- 9), wherein it was held that in view of the decisions of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is well settled that 2 to 3 times of the number of posts should be called for viva-voce. Applying that principle of law, the third phase of the selection process was set aside. The respondent-board was directed to frame a fresh policy decision whereby candidates 2 to 3 times the number of posts were to be called for the last phase of the selection process. I am informed at the Bar that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment and the same has attained finality. The Board has issued the impugned notice whereby the third phase of the selection process with respect to all the four categories have been set aside, and a fresh Computer Literacy Test has been notified. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners were not parties in C.W.J.C. no.16819 of 2008, and, therefore, that judgment cannot be made applicable to their cases. He next submits that the same may be applied to the category of Assistant Executive Engineers (G.T.O. cadre)(Mechanical) only. He, - 5 - therefore, prays that the judgment may be recalled, the petitioners and others concerned may be heard, and that matter may be disposed of by a fresh judgment. He relies on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and ors. Vrs. State of Pubjab and ors., reported in A.I.R. 1963 SC 1909. Counsel for the petitioners submits in the alternative that most of the petitioners have cleared all the three tests of the selection process and, therefore, there is no occasion to apply the principle of the judgment in Prabhat Kumar(supra) to the three other categories of employees. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned action. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the parties. In so far as petitioners first contention is concerned, the Board or any such person has not chosen to assail the same in appeal and it has attained finality. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to recall the same for a fresh decision. 7. In so far as the second contention is concerned, I am convinced that the ratio of the judgment is based on the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the principle is equally applicable to the other three categories of employees who are covered by the same Employment Notice no.05 of 2007. The circumstances indicated in paragraph-5 of the judgment in Prabhat Kumar (supra) is equally applicable to the present petitioners. In that view of the matter, I do not find any fault in the impugned notice in applying the ratio of - 6 - the judgment of Prabhat Kumar (supra) to the other three categories of employees. I would go to the extent of saying that the Board has acted with fairness and sagacity in applying the principle to similar circumstanced categories. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S. K. Katriar, J ) sudip