IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.443 of 2006 VIDYA BHUSHAN SINGH, son of late Janakdeo Singh, resident of village – Saichani, P O – Chainpur, P S – Raghunathpur, District – Siwan. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Region, Bettiah. 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Chamapran, Motihari. 5. The Chairman, Police Selection Board cum S.P. East Champaran, Motihari. ----------- 07. 9.11.2010 More the learned AAG tried to explain the decision taken by the so-called higher ups of the police department, the more knotted up he got, there was a clear and categorical statement made in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that higher authorities after considering the facts and circumstances of the case rejected the claim of the petitioner with the observation that in the existing fact it is not proper to appoint the petitioner on the post of a constable. Several adjournments were granted. Affidavits after affidavits have been filed but the concerned order has not been brought on record. In other words, whether there was an order at all is not visible on record. Communication of the department does not help the situation in any manner because the respondents were duty bound to take a final decision at what ever level it could be in terms of the earlier direction of the Court. Obliviously, the respondents have failed to understand the spirit and letter of the order passed earlier and they are bound to pass a speaking order because right of the petitioner of appointment or non-appointment will flow therefrom. Mere oral 2 statements or inferences may not do. The writ application is allowed with a direction to the respondents that they shall now pass an appropriate speaking order at the level they consider fit in the police headquarters within a period of six weeks from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)