IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.907 of 2009 1. MD.SAGIHUDDIN AHMAD, S/o late Md. Malihuddin Ahmad, Moh. Dargah Shah Arzan, Neemtal, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna 2. Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, S/o late Fakira Yadav, Moh. Jehanabad Dewariya, P.O. + P.S.+ District Jehanabad 3. Prem Shankar Yadav, S/o late Jay Yadav, vill + P.O. Khawaspur Kachahri Ke Tola, P.S. Krishnagarh, District Bhojpur … Intervenor Respondent/Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Preforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna 4. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bialey Road, Patna 5. Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 6. Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar 7. The Acting Chairman, B.P.S.C. Bailey Road, Patna 8. Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/o Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, C/o Chandra Mohan Prasad, Advocate Moh Manikpur, P.O. Mirjanhat, Bhagatlpu- 5, DRDA Office, Collectorate Compound, Bhagalpur 9. Vishwajeet Kumar, S/o Late Man Mohan Prasad, Res. of Moh Kharmanchak, Lalpatpark, Bhagalpur, SDO Sadar Office, Bhagalpur Res. of village Urdu Bazar (Rekabganj) P.O. Bhagalpur City, District Bhagalpur, Co. Office Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur 10. Nagendra Prasad Sah, S/o Sri Bateshwar Sah, Res. Q.No. 13, Jhauwa Kothi, P.O. Bari Khanjanpur, District Bhagalpur at present posted as Steno in the office of Deputy Development Commissioner Collectorate Compound, Bhagalpur 11. Prakash Chandra Ravidas, S/o Sant Lal Ravidas, vill Urdu Bazar (Rekabganj) P.O. Bhagalpur, P.s. Bhagalpur, C.O. Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur … Respondents. ----------- 3. 28.1.2010 Heard Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned counsel 2 for the appellants and the counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly admits that the same impugned judgment dated 12.9.2008 in C.W.J.C.No. 7725/2005 and its analogous cases has been affirmed by this Court in three appeals, namely, L.P.A.No. 833/2008, L.P.A.No. 812/2008 and L.P.A.No. 906/2009. In that view of the matter there would be no need for us to reconsider the same issues inasmuch as this Court while dismissing L.P.A.No. 833/2008, by an order dated 24th October, 2008 had observed that: “ 3. In so far as the present case is concerned, the entire selection process has been found to be farcical by the single judge. The whole exercise suffers from organized conspiracy and systematic fraud. The Chairman (present as well as past), three members and six officials and the staff of the Bihar Public Service Commission were arrested and have been charge-sheeted along with ninety seven selectees. The fraud and mischief played by these people is all-pervasive which has affected the entire selection process. 4. In the back drop of these facts and the situation where the entire selection process is found to be farcical and result of organized 3 conspiracy and systematic fraud, it is neither possible and nor feasible to separate the beneficiaries against whom there may not be any direct evidence of involvement. Even if few selectees (like the petitioners) are assumed to be not tainted, no benefit can be given to them since the factual situation leads to the only conclusion the entire selection process was founded on mischief, fraud, extraneous consideration and criminal acts. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH P.U.. PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER does not apply to the fact- situation of the present case. Incidentally, we may note that the counsel for the appellants did not put in issue the legality and correctness of the diverse findings recorded by the single judge that the selection process was farcical and the result of systematic fraud.” Yet again the Division Bench in the second in L.P.A.No. 812/2008 having noted the observations and the result of L.P.A.No. 833/2008 had again dismissed the same wherein it was additionally recorded that: “ 5. As a matter of fact, the appellants in that appeal were the selectees, who were not fond 4 to have indulged in fraud nor were charge- sheeted by the Vigilance Department. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants have been charge-sheeted and a criminal case is pending against them. The counsel would, however, submit that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that the charge- sheeted employees shall not be entitled to consideration and appointment. In our view, in a situation like this, where the appellants are facing the criminal case for being privy to cheating and large scale fraud in the process of competitive examination, until they are acquitted honorably, they would not be entitled for consideration for appointment. 6. It is pertinent to notice here that out of 184 selectees, 97 selectees have been charge- sheeted under diverse provisions of Indian Penal Code. That shows enormity of fraud and cheating having taken place in the selection process. The cancellation of selection process in its entirety, thus, cannot be faulted.” Even yesterday we have also dismissed L.P.A.No. 906/2009 arising out of the same judgment agreeing with the aforesaid views recorded in L.P.A. No. 833 of 2008 and L.P.A. No. 812 of 2008. 5 That being so, we would find no reason to now reopen the matter as all possible pros and cons have already been adjudicated by this Court in the aforementioned three appeals. Consequently, this appeal is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned three appeals. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/