IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.440 of 2007 ==================================================== DHARMENDRA KUMAR, SON OF TEG BAHADUR SINGH I.P.S. (RETIRED), ADVOCATE, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA +P.O. RAJENDRA NAGAR, ROAD NO. 12, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA :--PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY HOME POLICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY CUM OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, B.P.S.C. BAILY ROAD, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ==================================================== 03. 14.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the B.P.S.C. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor pursuant to advertisement published in the year 1996. He appeared in the written examination but was not declared successful whereafter he filed C.W.J.C.No. 6164 of 1998 which was disposed of under orders dated 18.11.1999, Annexure-1 directing the B.P.S.C. to award the petitioner marks against Question No. 10, 13(b). In compliance of the aforesaid order petitioner was allowed marks for the aforesaid two questions 2 with information to him under letter dated 3rd May, 2000, Annexure-2. Inspite of petitioner attaining the grade for being called for interview he was not being called for interview whereafter petitioner filed M.J.C.No. 2048 of 2003. During the pendency of the said M.J.C. No. 2048 of 2003 petitioner was asked to appear in the interview. Having appeared in the interview petitioner learnt that the Interview Board was not constituted as per the norms. 3. It appears petitioner brought to the notice of the High Court in the said contempt petition that the Interview Board was not as per the norms but the High Court did not accept such submission and dismissed the contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter by filing another writ petition. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the constitution of the Interview Board as according to the petitioner out of the four members of the Board, three were from the Commission and one was Law Expert, whereas according to the petitioner two members of the Board should have been from the Commission, one Law Expert and the fourth member should 3 have been from the prosecution side. 4. In support of the aforesaid plea that one member in the Interview Board should have been from the prosecution side petitioner has not placed any rules. As the rules have not been placed, I am not in a position to accept the submission that the constitution of the Interview Board was erroneous or illegal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)