IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4173 of 2009 KUNAL, s/o HARIHAR PRASAD JHA, PERMANENT ADDRESS- R/O MOHALLA-MUNDICHAK, (IN FRONT OF MINI MARKET), P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR, LOCAL ADDRESS-HOUSE OF SRI BHARAT SINGH, ROAD NO.1, MADHESH NAGAR, P.S. KESHRI NAGAR, PATNA. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIHAR, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BIHAR, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BIHAR, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. -RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Sri. S.C. Mitra For the State : Sri Prashant Pratap, AC to GA 9 For the High Court : M/s. Tara Kant Jha & Amish Kumar For BPSC : M/s P.K. Shahi & Vikash Kumar. 3 04.05.2009 Petitioner wanted to apply for the 27th Bihar Judicial Service (Preliminary) Competitive Examination. 2008. The maximum age prescribed for appearing in the examination was 35 years as on 1st August, 2008. He passed 2 LL.B examination in March, 2007. In any event he wanted relaxation of age in the cut off date merely because in earlier years relaxation was granted. It is true that when for seven years examination was conducted in consultation with the High Court Government doors were closed as several people who wanted to appear, has lost the chance of service under Government. Now situation is changed. His contention was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court because merely because in earlier orders relaxation also should be given. This order was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Bihar; 2009(1) PLJR 530, wherein one of us (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) was a party. It was held as follows: “It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the earlier year the cut-off date was shifted back and it should be shifted back in the present year also. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Simply because that in earlier year the State Government in consultation with the High Court had shifted back the cut-off date, that shall not entitle the petitioners to claim the same benefit this time also. We hasten to observe that it may be possible for the State Government to amend the Rules after consultation with the High Court but that is not possible to be done by judicial fiat. As observed earlier, earlier the cut-off date was shifted back as the advertisement for appointment was made after long years.” 3 Since the simple prayer was dismissed by the Division Bench. We cannot grant any indulgence. The petition is dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad