IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8132 of 2009 NIRANJAN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE S.P. SINHA, C/O BINAY KUMAR SINHA, R/O VILL: SINDANI, P.O. BELHARI, DISTRICT GAYA, BIHAR POSTAL ADDRESS: A-78, A.G. COLONY, P.O. ASHIANA NAGAR, PATNA-25 --------PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH IT SECRETARY, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA, BIHAR. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY(HOME), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. D.I.G.(GAYA RANGE), GAYA, BIHAR CUM CHAIRMAN, MAGADH RANGE, BOARD, GAYA-----RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Advocate. For the Commission : M/S P.K.Sahi, Advocate General, Vipin kumar, S.S.Sundram, Advocates. For the State : Mr. A. Amanullah, SC-XVII. ----------- 03. 20.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Staff Selection Commission, Patna, Bihar(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”). 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in response to Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application. His candidature for such selection was rejected in view of Clause 11 of the Advertisement, which inter alia provided that if the applicant had two residence, one permanent and the other temporary then he should apply before the D.I.G. of one of the range, where he has his permanent/temporary residence. Petitioner applied before the D.I.G. of both the ranges, namely, where he has his permanent as also temporary residence and his application being in teeth of Clause 11 of the Advertisement was rejected. 3. Petitioner has filed this writ application relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Binod Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 11886 of 2006, Anexure-6 whereunder the Division Bench of this Court directed the authorities to hold special examination for those who on account of some confusion submitted application for being considered in the selection test before the - 2 - D.I.G. of the range in which their permanent/temporary residence was located. 4. Counsel for the Commission with reference to the order of the another Division Bench dated 1.4.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 139 of 2008 submitted that the validity of Clause 11 of advertisement was considered by the Division Bench in the light of the other clauses of the advertisement and the Division Bench appreciating the idea behind Clause 11 was to confine the applicant to appear before one of the Board upheld the validity of Clause 11 of the advertisement. Against the order dated 1.4.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 139 of 2008 matter had also gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 10020 of 2008, which was dismissed in limine under orders dated 16.4.2008. Counsel for the Commission further pointed out that the reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the order of the subsequent Division Bench dated 24.2.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11886 of 2006, Annexure-6 has no relevance to the case of the petitioner as in the said case the Division Bench was considering the application of those who were residents outside the State of Bihar and relying on Clause 10 of the advertisement directed for holding special examination but the said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court under orders dated 24.4.2009 passed in S.L.P. No. 9036 OF 2009. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Commission, as the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 1.4.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 139 of 2008, I am not in a position to grant the relief prayed for in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha , J.)